Subject: RE: AOL undermines publisher's interests From: "Robert D. Seidman" Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 21:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
How the Web Was Won
Subject: RE: AOL undermines publisher's interests From: "Robert D. Seidman" Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 21:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <01BA17FB.68F61DA0@jeremy.ing.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

On Mon, 1 May 1995, Jeremy Allaire wrote:

> 
> Yes, PRE works, but not when using Forms, which is crucial as it is the only
> way to get real layout for form objects.  Otherwise, forms look like crap, or
> close, it seems.

Please give me an example of an URL where this is the case.  I went to a 
couple of pages where I knew a lot of form entry was required and didn't
see a problem.
 
> I've been totally unable to get any search results back.
(referring to Yahoo).  Wait a sec, you gave me Yahoo as a site
where the results were totally botched.  I'm confused!


> < know what you mean, but want to make sure.>>
> 
> Transparent gifs allow graphics to blend in with the grey or other background.
> This allows for gifs that are not rectangles, but really any shape.  AOL's browser
> simply shows the original gif and background.

Um, this isn't exactly a technical marvel.  The "transparent" gifs you 
speak of are an ugly kludge that emphasize the limits of the medium, the 
background is added in the standard grey so it blends in.  If you're not 
using the standard grey background you see the grey.  Under the 
Members/Set Preferences/WWW path there is a setting to get the standard 
grey background.  If you mean something else, I apologize.  Let me know.

> It's never clear what everyone follows, but it is assumed that nearly all
> browsers SHOULD at least handle the proposed HTML 2.0 specs,
> and some of the HTML 3.0 specs.

When you have no official standard, assuming can be a dangerous game.
I still think Netscape is the leader (haven't had time to check out the 
new Mosaic), but I am sure AOL will conform (eventually) to whatever the 
standards and assumed standards are.  But your portrayal of their browser 
seems a little off.  Most people won't notice.  That is not to say that 
AOL shouldn't change to fully conform to an "assumed" standard.  They 
should, and my guess is that they will.  But it seems like you're really 
picking nits, except for garbled forms, which I've not yet seen.

For those who have had no luck with the browser whatsoever...it seems that
the AOL home page is up and down even FROM AOL.  If it's your first time,
just click the stop icon, and then enter whatever URL you want to go to.
One thing I have noticed is that performance via a SLIP/PPP connection to 
AOL seems to run slower than connecting via AOL NET orX.25. I suppose 
this may have something to do with double name resolving...but that gets 
a little too techie for me. :-)

Robert 

From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Tue May  2 03:03:54 1995
Received: from marketplace.com by cnj.digex.net with SMTP id AA28897
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 2 May 1995 00:40:48 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18196 for online-news-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 1995 19:56:04 -0600
Received: from tusk.lm.com (tusk.lm.com [192.231.221.7]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA18190 for ; Mon, 1 May 1995 19:56:01 -0600
Received: (from markv20@localhost) by tusk.lm.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) id VAA01703; Mon, 1 May 1995 21:57:57 -0400