Re: Mess = (Javascript && (AOL || Netcom))

[sfeather@dscga.com (Stephen Feather)]

On Wed, 21 Feb 1996 15:57:37 -0500, you wrote:

>I agree that 'old' browsers that won't keep up with HTML standards 
>should not get special attention when developing web content, however 
>you must consider the wide (ohh how unfortunate) grasp that AOL has on 
>the market. 

> I believe they have (or will shortly) just released their 
>2.0 browser in an attempt to keep up.  IMHO its too little too late, but 
>the fact that AOL makes my skin crawl doesn't lessen its impact on Web 
>Developers everywhere.
Agreed.  HTML 3.0 on its way, and HTML 4.0 to begin shortly there
after, AOL is a bit behind the times...

>Hopefully with CompuServe announcing UNLIMITED internet access for =
>$19.95 monthly, some of the other Online Network bohemouths (sp?) will =
>follow suit.  This also allows for Netscape to be run with a SLIP =
>account.  Could you image AOL'ers using Netscape? I think we'd all have =
>something to cheer for.

Whats the learning curve on a transition like this? <G>

>I hope you didn't take my warnings about AOL non-compliance as 
>anit-Netscape.  I am one of their strongest supporters.  I believe that 
>they push HTML standards like no other group can.  But until their 
>proposal *BECOME STANDARD*, think of how damaging it could be to have 
>your functions and such ruin a client's page when any of the MILLIONS of 
>AOL'ers log in.

No, I think I read it in the manner in which you intended.  Agreed.
What I fear happening is for Uncle Bill to puch his own "standards",
as absurd as they ussually are, and have companies, like Netscape,
current leader in the market, take a back seat.  What I "predict"
happening is this. MS jumps on the "Netscape is moving too fast"
bandwagon, and decides that a big company like MS should lead, and
convince the large "internet?" providers (AOL, prodigy, compuserve) to
support the MS extensions.  In doing so, we move once again from open
development (although currently it doesn't appear that way, but the
development is open, and all extensions are considered for inclusion
in the HTML specs) to closed, one sided development.  The MS way...:(

>Maybe we should create a 'JavaScript' icon like the Blue Ribbon that 
>everyone used for the Indecency Act issues.  Use the <NOEMBED> tags, and 
>link it to an explination that the clients browser sucks and provide a 
>'mailto:aol-excecutive.com' form so they can flame AOL into compliance.  
>But then again does AOL support mailto?? Just kidding

I'm all for it! And I love your sarcasm....<G>

>On a more serious note, didn't AOL announce support for Javascript? 
>Anyone got the list of browsers that are? 

No, I don't not yet...
Is MSIA up to HTML 2.0 yet?

(BTW, I hae gotten a lot closer to MAC users since I put our team here
into Java and Javascript development.  So don't consider anything I
say an OS flame.  I run Win 95 on my personal PC, and Linux as the
local net server.  My development PC at the office is WARPed. One of
our staff has a MAC, so we can test our pages for compatibility.  I
just tend to disagree with Bill Gates approach to development...)

>Its just a matter of time before this thread is irrelevant, but in the 
>mean time, I'm trying to build a reputation of quality work for my 
>upstart company, and will fix my pages to work under AOL.
>
>Anybody else got an idea?? I know it concerns all of us!

So, how are you currently circumventing the Javascript pages?  Two
sets of links?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
This message came from the mailing list javascript. For help using the
mailing list software, please send a message to 'majordomo@obscure.org'
with the message body 'help'. To unsubscribe, send a message to
'majordomo@obscure.org' with the message body 'unsubscribe javascript'.