Jonathan wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. I have a couple of comments and > a suggestion I hope might be useful. > 1) I am impressed that things actually just work under Win32.
My experience is that the browsers, JavaScript, and the JVMs under Win32 are very stable and very robust. There are more people developing and using Win32 than OSX. > 2) I am surprised that things work under UNIX/LINUX and not under > MacOS. The Unix that is under MacOS is certainly improving. But, I believe that Linux is much better and is getting better faster. There are more people developing and using Linux than OSX. > Does this mean that if I set up Mozilla under X11 on my Mac > it would work? Unfortunately not. The problems are related to Java, JavaScript, Safari ... and (presumably) general lack of resources within Apple. > My suggestion... > > It appears that we need to complain to Apple about their > java/javascript support. I think that would help. The recent fiasco of Java 1.4.2 Update 1 breaking LiveConnect is pretty good evidence that they don't think that LiveConnect communications between JavaScript and Java applets is very important. > However, in the meantime here's a possible > work around. Don't put up a message that the browser is unsupported. > Load the applet and the structure file called for by the web page. > If the browser is not supported for the javascript/java applet > communications display a message that functionality of the applet has > been limited because this browser does not support javascript/java > applet communications. The user is advised to upgrade (if possible) > and contact their browser and OS provider to ask them to work on this > problem. It would be best to replace the controls with this message, > but the message could also appear above or below the image window. What I hear you saying is that I should delay the bad news until the user presses a button. > What this will do is that almost everyone who comes to a web page > will be able to see the structures. They may have more limited > abilities to manipulate them, but they will at least get to look at > them and are more likely to want to pressure Apple and browser > developers to solve the problem. Well ... maybe you are right. I'll give it some thought. Certainly one thing you have made me realize is that people should be able to create simple pages that contain only JmolApplets using the Jmol.js JavaScript library and not have it complain. > If I had time I would like to help with more than suggestions, Suggestions/feedback is the most valuable thing you can give me. Thanks, Miguel ----- Open Source Molecular Visualization www.jmol.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
