On 2005-03-01 (13:38) William Reusch wrote:
Hi Tim,
You raise some interesting points, and I will try to obtain the
information pertaining to them. The data I cited came from a brief
(ca. 2 week period) in early January. Repeat hits were not factored
out. MSIE was far and away the most used
Hi Tim,
You raise some interesting points, and I will try to obtain the
information pertaining to them.
The data I cited came from a brief (ca. 2 week period) in early January.
Repeat hits were not factored out.
MSIE was far and away the most used browser, followed by Firefox and
Netscape.
On 2005-02-28 (16:34) Tamas E. Gunda wrote:
After the creation of many Chime pages in the past I've made several
Jmol test pages - I intend to write some new tutorial pages in
organic chemistry and before doing so I wanted to test Jmol. An
important point in my eyes is that the use of the pages
Tamas E. Gunda wrote:
To summarize, I am in dilemma - which is the better solution? To make
everything in double? The presence of Chime is easy to test,
and if ok, lets use it. However, the check of the Jmol applet is not so
straightforward, as its functionality heavily depends upon
the actual
timothy driscoll wrote:
so I would argue against putting a visible, active Jmol on your home page, for example
, until you can run some basic compatibility checks.
I worry about this on the new Jmol test page. Is that page set up to
detect the absense of capability to run the applet? Or does it
On Feb 28, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Bob Hanson wrote:
HOWEVER, it would be nice -- I'll bet Henry Rzepa knows how to do this
-- if when Java is not there they at least get a GIF or something that
points them to how to proceed. Would that be object code? For
example, jmol.js could be modified to
On 2005-02-28 (10:56) Bob Hanson wrote:
Tamas E. Gunda wrote:
To summarize, I am in dilemma - which is the better solution? To make
everything in double? The presence of Chime is easy to test, and if
ok, lets use it. However, the check of the Jmol applet is not so
straightforward, as its
On 2005-02-28 (11:01) Bob Hanson wrote:
timothy driscoll wrote:
so I would argue against putting a visible, active Jmol on your
home
page, for example
, until you can run some basic compatibility checks.
I worry about this on the new Jmol test page. Is that page set up to
detect the
Hi, Tamas,
I agree with your assessment that there is a dilemma right now (thanks
largely to Microsoft having removed java from Windows).
However, there is no question in my mind that jmol is the answer for the
future, because it is under active development, has open source, and
already works
Eric Martz wrote:
...
I agree with your assessment that there is a dilemma right now (thanks
largely to Microsoft having removed java from Windows).
...
Sun Microsystems (which controls Java) sued Microsoft to force the
software giant to conform to Sun's Java standard. That Microsoft would
then
10 matches
Mail list logo
