On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, "Mithgol the Webmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----------snip almost all------------- > Consider the above paragraph as apologies. "I'm not a wizard, I'm > just studying yet" - became a proverbial saying here in Russia. > I can't make miracles. I'll be quite happy to create a shield > to protect from the most common dirty tricks. Good Grief...!!!!...Mithgol...!!!! You may not have done THE definitive exposition of what/how to do an implementation of JavaScript for Arachne...but you have certainly done a VERY in-depth study of that process.....!!!!.....<g g g g> We (at least I do) hope that this has NOT detracted from your studies....in that you might flunk one of your courses...<g> Now, we are going to need to digest your exposition.... Two things pop out immediately... 1. Arachne API support must be enumerated (I mean, any existing functionality must be investigated/denoted) so that you can take advantage of any that is already builtin. And anything new will need to be clearly described and specified. 2. Almost ANY addition to Arachne could well make your engine a "mad" scheme, because it would overload the existing 640KByte space, and be unusable. Therefore, let us consider using a DPMI engine for these new features....I know...this will break the existing full-backward-compatibility of Arachne...usable from newest Pentiums down to XTs...but...it seems to me that this new functionality may REQUIRE the DPMI..and, thus breaking backward compatibility may be inevitable... This certainly is a worthwhile topic to discuss here...thank you for tossing such a meaty input into the discussion.. ....gregy
