>The "DNA Lab" page is unreadable with Mosaic on Unix platforms.  One could
>say that Mosaic is lacking behind whatever, but if one is to offer WWW pages
>that should be accessible from most platforms, they should definitely include
>that one: Mosaic is _more_ widely available that Netscape, since its source
>is available, and hence it can be compiled on platforms on which Netscape
>is not.  On PCs (where it works fine) it is much faster than Netscape.

        Here is an interesting (maybe) story.   We use lots and lots of images
that contain hotspots on our Web server (these are called ISMAP).  Different
parts of the images can be clicked and these different parts follow links
to different pages.  These "hot" images are readable on both Netscape and
Mosaic, but someone using Lynx or other text browsers are screwed.  The
text browsers cannot resolve images let alone ISMAPs.  So we used to
include something like "for those of you who cannot click inside images,
here are the text links". We recently changed some pages so they no longer
contain ISMAP's but tables. Tables are something that Netscape can do but
Mosaic cannot.  Tables are an implementation of HTML3.0 standards.  Even
though Lynx cannot resolve
tables, it can resolve the text in the tables.  So using tables, we provide
a service for text browser users.  They can access the text in the tables and
we no longer have to provide two sets of links... one through the images
and one through the text.  We do also include a link to the old pages so
that people with Mosaic can access stuff.  Point is, these new technologies
can enfranchise and disenfranchise both!  Good use of Netscape enhancements
provide a real service for both Netscape clients and text browser clients.

        I want to be perfectly frank... Mosaic has no place in the WWW
market.  The tired excuse that Mosaic source code is available is
pretty, well, pathetic.  So what?  How many of us look at Mosaic source code?
Between 65% to 75% of people use Netscape. The rest use text browsers or
browsers provided by their Internet provider.  I cannot believe that more
than 10% of the users out there still use Mosaic.

>Besides, I am all against companies that wish to impose their own standards
>on all the world, thereby (i) booting out all competition, (ii) making money
>out of their products.  The ways of Microsoft is not the ways of all flesh, I
>hope.

I occassionally have to serve on these standards commities for databases.
If you have ever participated in one of these, you know that sometimes
some entity just needs to get up and say "This is how we did it.  It works.
You can either do it our way or wallow around for years while we pass you
by".  This may sound hopelessly cynical, but it just seems like reality.
I am not a big fan of capitalism necessarily, and do not endorse this
policy wholeheartedly... but I am in favor of progress and I am in favor
of seeing better tools for making Web pages...

This is why I am always amused by all this fervent anti-Microsoft sentiment.
What the hell has Microsoft ever done to you?  I am MUCH more worried
about the Republicans in office who want to limit freedom of speech on
the Internet and remove all sources of government funding for my research.
Damnit, Microsofts more a friend than enemy... I use the company's software
all the time to do my work.

>To sum up, a page which I can't view with the more standard tools won't make
>it to our list.

Your loss.  Jim's work is both sophisticated and well written.  Well
worth the effort of downloading FOR FREE netscape client software.

Cheers,


Robert Guralnick | Department of Integrative Biology | Museum of Paleontology
University of California, Berkeley | Berkeley, CA 94720 | (510) 643-9746