> 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.
Putting in HTML 3.0 keywords can really make things unplesant for
other browsers, though. Have you tried to read a table with a browser
which does not support them? Ugh. And it's not just ugly, either.
The information presented by the form of the data is lost.
It might be a bit too much work to bother with, but you could easily
check the headers on the query message to determine what type of
browser is requesting data; based on that information, you could
send back either an HTML 3.0 document or a dumbed down version
(for instance, one that uses <pre> and ascii characters to form
tables). This would allow a robust version of the archives for those
whose browsers support it, and a function version for everyone else.
-- Adam Roach -- adam.roach@exu.ericsson.se -- Standard Disclaimers, etc. You have an unusual magnetic personality. Don't walk too close to metal objects which are not fastened down.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved