> I would rather not have more than one version of the FAQ Launchers but
> I don't think we need to stick to HTML 2. I think that as long as we
> stick with standard HTML (i.e., 2, 3, and above) and make sure that it
> looks reasonable in the main browsers - Lynx, NCSA Mosaic, Netscape
> Navigator, etc. - we will be providing a really useful tool to the
> vast majority of the Net.
First, let me say that I love the idea of FAQ Launchers; it looks
like they can be a great tool.
I have to agree with Mr. Gilman, though. It seems to me that it
would be much better to stick to the version of HTML that has the
widest support. For my money, as a long-time user of Lynx, the
launcher doesn't look particularly good in Lynx; readable, yes, if
you try hard, but not easy or attractive. As an aside, I know of
one page that claims the Mosaic tables interface is full of bugs and
is currently being completely rewritten... Can anyone support that?
Here's the Launcher's appearance on this end:
FAQ Launcher Help (p1 of 2)
FAQ LAUNCHER HELP
FAQ Launcher Template maintainer
Summary Extracted from Summary header
Location Primary Hypertext (extracted from FAQ-URL auxiliary header)
Secondary Hypertext (Utrecht, Oxford, Smart Pages, Ohio State)
Plain Text (MIT) Utrecht Oxford Smart Pages Ohio State MIT
-->
Related Discussion Extracted from Newsgroups header but *.answers
groups are not listed (because these are not for "related discussion")
Related Info Extracted from Related-URL auxiliary header
Comments Extracted from Comments auxiliary header
Ron Carman
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved