Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages

Walter Ian Kaye (
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:04:45 -0700

Message-Id: <v03102808b02b98a3fcac@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:04:45 -0700
From: Walter Ian Kaye <>
Subject: Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages

At 3:49p -0500 08/28/97, Charles E. Carroll wrote:
 > But I think there's a problem with the Any Browser Initiative as
 > well.  Specifically, with the word "Any."

 > OK, my example is farfetched, but the issue is not.  Lynx doesn't
 > support tables, after all.  Do we eschew tables?  Yes, I know
 > that many tables can be made Lynx-friendly with appropriate use
 > of <br>, <p>, etc., and I do when I can, but 1) there are some tables
 > which are not easily made Lynx-friendly, and 2) since tables are
 > standard HTML, why should we have to write ugly code like that?

Hmm... I'm getting an idea...

How about some sort of "geek code" (but not as geeky) where we enumerate
what the page uses, something like:

  Level 0: does not use
  Level 1: optional
  Level 2: required
        Y: yes/true
        N: no/false
        *: any

    modifier: "+" = heavy use (cpu-intensive?)

TBL: tables
FRM: frames
IMG: images
216: non-dithering palette
JS:  JavaScript
CK:  cookies
J:   Java
WW:  window width

So, an enumeration might look like:

  216=Y; WW=472-*; JS=1; CK=0; J=0; TBL=2+; IMG=1,#5:6K,WHA

The extra parms on IMG mean 5 pics totaling 6KB, and all having width=,
height=, and alt= attributes.

Just brainstorming...

  Walter Ian Kaye <boo_at_best*com>    Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter