Re: Simple graphics capabilities are needed

Rob (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com)
Tue, 30 Dec 1997 13:47:37 -0500


Message-Id: <199712301909.OAA08266@unix.asb.com>
From: "Rob" <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
To: Venkat <Venkatp@integratech.soft.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 13:47:37 -0500
CC: www-html@w3.org
In-reply-to: <c=US%a=soft.net%p=IntegraTechSoft%l=PHOENIX-971230121132Z-6356@phoenix.integratech.soft.net>
Subject: RE: Simple graphics capabilities are needed

On 30 Dec 97, Venkat <Venkatp@integratech.soft.net> wrote:

> [..]
> Regarding text-based terminals, I think -  advances in any
> specifications never stopped due the non-support from old systems. For
> example, Frames are still not supported by some browser versions, but we
> can't throw the feature altogether.

Frames when used properly can be handled by non-frames supporting 
browsers. And some text-based browsers like Lynx recognize the existence 
of Frames and allow users to view them, although in an awkward manner.

Drawing simple graphics is another matter. How do non-visual browsers 
handle this? How to agents with graphics disabled handle this?

> [..]
> Server-side-script (CGI or ASP) can do something only if the HTML or
> CSS2 specification (and finally the browser) supports the feature.

Not so. The image can be created as a GIF on the fly by a script. CGI 
only deals with serving "documents", be they HTML, GIF, or otherwise.

Rob


-----
"The word to 'kill' ain't dirty    | Robert Rothenburg wlkngowl@unix.asb.com
 I used it in the last line        | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl
 but use the short word for lovin' | http://www.wusb.org/mutant
 and Dad you wind up doin' time."  | PGP'd mail welcome (ID 0x5D3F2E99)