[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: color: NCSA Mosaic, Netscape, and HTML3




Lou Montulli <montulli@strumpet.mcom.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 html-wg@oclc.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?


--jenglish@crl.com


References: