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. 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. 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. 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 On a more serious note, didn't AOL announce support for Javascript? Anyone got the list of browsers that are? 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! Andy Augustine JavaScript 411 -- http://www.his.com/~smithers/freq/beta/index.html ---------- From: Stephen Feather[SMTP:sfeather@dscga.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 1996 4:29 PM To: javascript@obscure.org Subject: Re: Mess = (Javascript && (AOL || Netcom)) On Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:57:24 -0500, you wrote: >Ohhh Mike! >'incorrect-parsing-glory', huh? I guess you're not aware that Netscape = >broke from the 'correct' standards when they changed from '<!-- comment = >>' to '<!-- comment -->'. The fact that Lynx, AOL, Mosaic and ALL other = >browsers read '>' as end of comment is not THEIR problem its YOURS and = >ours together. >How is any Web Developer supposed to create a Javascript site for a = >small business whose only access is through AOL? They might be OK with = >the fact that they can't use the JS applications, but I gaurentee that = >you'll lose the account if you're function and variable references shine = >through between their beautiful logo! >We need to work together and figure out how to code correctly and = >discretely for alternative browsers. Andy, I'm heart borken...Our hero has fallen...<G> I never expected you to be on that side of the fence..<G> Of course, I agree with you that Netscape created a "booboo" with the changing of the comment syntax. (BTW, was that included with the HTML 3.0 submissions or not?) But who should lead the pack in changes? Do you want Net progress to falter because we let AOL "lead the way" in development? I think not. Netscape made a judgement call. So far, Netscape supports more formats than any of the other browsers do. I look at the problem from the other side...That little company that uses AOL for Web access, has a problem. By not gaining "real" Net access, they have already limited themselves. That was their call. Should you or I be forced to support EVERY old browser out there? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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'.
<<application/ms-tnef>>