Re: color: NCSA Mosaic, Netscape, and HTML3
Lou Montulli <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps; perhaps not. If you think they're good ideas, why not
> > submit a formal proposal to the HTML working group?
> They have been. I came with a list of ideas to the last IETF and
> presented them to Dave Raggert and whoever else that would listen.
Ah. Could you post your ideas to firstname.lastname@example.org too?
That way it'll get archived for reference purposes.
(Plus, as far as I know, if it's not posted to the mailing
list it "doesn't count"; please correct me if I'm wrong.)
> > [ "if LINK, ALINK, and VLINK, why not LINKICONPLACEMENT etc.?" ]
> There is a big difference here. We implemented BODY BACKGROUND
> and found that it was impossible to use without TEXT, LINK and VLINK
> because you could use a background that caused the text and
> links to become unreadable. We therefore had no choice but
> to add the attributes to make backgrounds usable.
That makes sense; I still think that LINK, VLINK, and ALINK
are poorly named at best, and at worst the third step down a
very slippery slope. But that's a philosophical issue...
> Just tell netscape to always use your background image or color
> and ignore any set by the document. You can do that in the
> prefs or in your Xresources.
Aha! Why couldn't I find this before?