Subject: RE: AOL undermines publisher's interests From: Robert D. Seidman Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 21:13:17 -0500

On Mon, 1 May 1995, Jeremy Allaire wrote:

> 
<>

This appears to happen in cases where multiple drop boxes are used.
It is a much smaller problem than I originally thought, but still 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!>>

No no no.  Not at all.  It's the searching that is problematic -- meaning using
the search form to do keyword searches.  And, this is not just with Yahoo
searching, but with a wide variety of forms based queries.  It chokes on
receiving the output of the CGI application.  This is horrible.  Here's a URL
to try it on.  Do a search.  Incidentally, it broke in Internet Shopping Network
as well, making it impossible to access the service.

http://www.yahoo.com/search.html

<>

No, transparency is part of the GIF 89a standard, which the vast majority of Wed
developers currently use.  It is NOT the use of 'grey backgrounds' in browsers.
Transparent gifs are transparent whether the background is white, black, grey
or a HTML 3.0 graphic background.  Here's a URL where the supposed
transparent color is not shown as Yellow, which is not how it shows in 95% of browsers.
This will be a major problem, in so far as it will destroy the color and layout properties
of a well-designed page.  Incidentally, it has been standard for over a year.

http://www.realaudio.com

<>

I think its a less-dangerous game than you think.  The vast majority of browsers support a core set of features, best represented in HTML 2.0 and now moving to 3.0.
The fact of the matter is that AOL had over a year and millions of dollars and
a hot software acquisition and they couldnt even manage to compete with
15 twenty-somethings in Mountain View. Publishers have very real demands and
needs, and most are developing to what are perceived as standards.  AOL has
in a small manner slapped publishers in the face, I am afraid.  I will be curious to
see how quickly they adopt common uses.

<<  But your portrayal of their browser 
seems a little off.  Most people won't notice>>.

I think they will -- weird colors, forms that don't work, queries that don't work,
and the inability to use any value-added services because of broken
authentication handling.  Those are problems, they will obviously be fixed.
They also fail to handle URL's properly, killing any service which uses 
a database backend and URL state information to drive a custom user
experience.  They've hence aliented the high-end, as well.

I don't mean to be hysterical.  I see it as a big problem when a major major
player releases something which breaks 3/4 of my development, which
also happens to be HTML 2.0 compliant and using standard mechanisms.

I'll give them a break, at least for their first-run.

Jeremy




From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Tue May  2 03:57:12 1995
Received: from marketplace.com by cnj.digex.net with SMTP id AA19474
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 2 May 1995 03:57:10 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29579 for online-news-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 1995 23:54:21 -0600
Received: from netcom3.netcom.com (joeshea@netcom3.netcom.com [192.100.81.103]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA29574 for ; Mon, 1 May 1995 23:54:18 -0600
Received: by netcom3.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
	id WAA14845; Mon, 1 May 1995 22:55:27 -0700