Unless I'm mistaken, both the old and the new (1.1N) versions of Netscape
are available as shareware on the web for anyone to download.  I think that
Jim Angus was only discouraging those who are still using the old version
not to bother viewing his web page because the older version doesn't allow
you to see all of the fancy graphics, backgrounds, etc., that are becoming
a matter of course on web pages.  I think all one needs to do is download
the newer version (unless it's only available on particular university
servers??)

But someone please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.




>Jim Angus of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County posts:
>
>>>>>I have finished the first 'draft' of a www presentation ...
>
>If you're not using Netscape 1.1N, don't bother looking at the
>presentation, it'll look like garbage. I'm also writing a simple,
>less fancy version for other browsers
>
>Given the wild success success of the Internet and Web access, is
>anyone upset by the fact that Netscape is a bit of "the tail waging
>the dog"?
>
>
>The major success that has made Internet communication so successful
>is open-standards and a lack of proprietary formats. HTML is a
>commonly agreed upon standard, so why is the community at large,
>especially the museum crowd who could really use open-standards
>access for once, supporting a migration back to proprietary formats
>for information delivery?
>
>
>I am just curious if the field at large is interested in being vocal
>to the software providers, or is the museum community following
>whatever direction software vendors feel like going?
>
>A scruffy inquiry I know, but I am very curious to know what those in
>the trenches think.
>
>Robert MacKimmie
>California Historical Society, San Francisco
>[log in to unmask]

Lucia I. Dorsey
Coordinator
Arthur Ross Gallery
University of Pennsylvania
220 South 34th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6380
TEL: (215) 898-4401
FAX: (215) 573-2045