On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:12:09PM -0500, Phoebus Dokos wrote:
> At 03:29 ìì 03/12/2001, you wrote:
> >I found the site to run rather slow on my SGI R5K Indy with Netscape 3.01S.
> > The javascript was really slow to run.
> >
> >Personally I will not create a web site with either Java, Javascript,
> >Flash, or
> >other fluff. I prefer plain html. Granted I won't write any e-commerce
> >sites,
> >but too many regular web pages use this fluff stuff to make it look better at
> >the sacrafice of it working well on a number of browsers. I wish I could send
> >a missle the way of each webmaster that says "update to the latest X brower to
> >see our page".
> >
> >Tim Swenson
>
> I have to disagree partially with you Timothy. The fact that something
> works as is doesn't mean it cannot be improved. If the latter was true,
> then we would be still driving around Ford T's and watching black and white
> silent movies instead of HDTV.
the improvement is moving in very questionable direction. Just because
I want to look at some site I should not be forced to execute any untrusted
unauthenticated third party code. Furthermore 999/1000 sites could achieve
the same or better effects with plain HTML.
> Yes it is a given in the case of QLers that we don't even have a functional
> browser yet (except Lynx under uQLx) but that also means that the average
> QLer with internet access usually has a Windoze machine. Nothing I put on
> the page does not work with any popular browser... as a matter of fact, my
> pages are constantly checked once published with Netscape 3.x and above,
> IExploder 3.0 and above, Opera and even through BeOs with NetPositive (and
> of course with Netscape, IE, Gnome and KBrowser through Red Hat Linux and
> the regular Netscape and IE on a Mac. Everything works. :-)
> Compatibility should be considered yes... but I covered this already :-)
please add w3m, links and lynx to your list of browsers.
Bye
Richard
