In article <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] (Uri Bruck) writes:
|>>At 01:15 PM 11/3/95 -0800, Robert MacKimmie wrote:
|>>>I hate to be cranky, but the whole concept of the web is universal
|>>>access by adhering to STANDARDS--html standards for starters.
|>>>Here is my flammingly pissed-off message for those who are so hip out
|>>>there that they have to put up sites that "have to use Netscape..."
[hopefully I got the attribution right after all these deletions]
|>- Netscape 1.1, which is the one many 'in' pages cater for, is ported
|>to Windows 3.1/3.11, Mac, Unix; Have I missed a platform?
Text only terminals. The blind (standard HTML to speech conversion
is possible.) VMS (ugh). People in countries the US government bans
sale of Netscape to (and before you say anything, maybe they're in an
opposition party.) Having said this, it's still using by 80% of people.
|>- The standards comitee which created the HTML 3.0 standard
|>specification has been working for many months now in cooperation with
|>the Netscape people, and has incorporated the so-called Netscape
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
says Netscape - pity its not true - for Netscape 2.0 they have again
invented their own structures rather than implementing the
existing HTML 3.0 ones. (eg client side imagemaps with <IMG> rather
than <FIG>)
|>'extensions' into the HTML 3.0 standard.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
False. A small number, but mostly it has been the other way around,
eg Netscape accepting <H1 ALIGN=CENTER> as well as its own <CENTER>
Things liks <CENTER> and <BLINK> are not in HTML 3.0.
|>This information has been
|>published on the web by the standards comitee
Specifically?
More arguments about HTML vs Netscape should really go to
the newsgroup comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
"Paul H. Pincus" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
|>>Java allows you to interact with actual software over the internet, hear
|>>sounds and view animations WITHOUT having to load viewers and audio players.
|>So what's the point here? Applications don't hold all code in memory
|>anyway, so either way they'd have to load code. There is no
|>significant difference in performance whether you seperate an
|>application to EXE's LIB' DLL's, or whatever equivalent concepts exist
|>on other platforms.
Java allows the viewers, players and mini applications ('applets') to
be loaded over the net from the site the page comes from automatically.
(And it does this in a way which will prevent viruses and Trojan horses.)
ie it lets you download and run programs inside the browser not just
text and graphics. And it does it in a platform independent way.
|>In fact, the browser DOES load all those viewers.
|>The concept of having all the viewers as part of the browser is
|>limiting, becasue you can't have a new kind of document, unless it's
|>extensible, in which case it is no different than current setup of a
|>browser which automatically calls other applications to display
|>certain file types.
Obviously false if you can download new applications over the net just
by visiting the page that needs them.
|>Actually the present way allows you to view all the different kinds of
|>document with old browser, and mix and match the other viewers
|>according to your prefferences
Quite the reverse: Java means you never need get stuck with a browser
which can't read new formats: a new viewer will just be downloaded
automatically.
|>>For everyone in the museum field creating virtual reality exhibits and
|>>providing conducted tours with sound, movement and images the same as you
|>>could using an interactive CD-ROM program is now possible [and more]. You
|>>can have the cyberspace museum you always wanted. Create a more intimate
|>>experience for new audiences with your institutions collection and programs
|>>over the internet.
Exactly: people can not just download a pretty diagram of how a steam
engine works, then can download an animated model of the diagram with
controls to change the steam pressure, cylinder size etc and it all runs
on their own machine so they're OK even with a slow telephone link to the
net. It's like the difference between seeing a video of a model and
playing with a hands on exhibit. It will allow 'Hands on Virtual Museums'
rather than just 'Glass Case Virtual Museums' made up of text and static
images (or even short animations which are always the same.) Here the
terminology does get a bit silly: "Hands on" _and_ "Virtual"!
|>Java is a nice idea, but certainly the last word on the subject. It is
|>mostly a programmer's tool. I'm certainly in favor of giving more work
|>to programmers. But I don't think most museums can afford to employ
|>proggrammers as well
Wait until easy to use animation design software comes out which
produces a Java applet as its output. Three years ago the internet was
'just used by programmers' and then along came graphical interfaces like
Mosaic and Netscape.
Imagine a program which would take an Excel spreadsheet model of part of
an economy, say, and then produce a Java applet which does the same
calculation and outputs graphs of values at the end of every cycle.
Then anyone who can put an Excel spreadsheet together can make exhibits
like this. The same translator would work for any Excel model like this:
steam engines, fox and rabbit populations, whether buildings collapse
in earthquakes...
You only have to pay one programmer to write one translator once. After
that its just Excel 'programming' (putting numbers and formulae into
boxes.)
I could dream up similar translators for drawing packages etc. Anybody
looking for someone to start writing this stuff??? (Just kidding)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew McNab - Email: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
High Energy Physics Group, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London.
CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics, Geneva.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
