Re: HTML/Browser Extensions and Object Control

On Tue 16 Sep, Rob wrote:
> On 15 Sep 97, Iain Wilkie Logan wrote:


> I think foreground/background images can be combined as one inline images 
> switch. (Also background images would be covered in the <BODY> attributes 
> directive.)

I thought separate switches might be better - I use a system with
anti-aliased fonts, and rendering on some pages which have multi coloured
background images can be a bit iffy, particularly on the ones with a broad
band of colour down one side. These usually render OK without the background
image, but with the other images switched on.

> >  Display frames
> >  Display tables
> Disabling frames is a good one. Tables I do not think are a problem.

Agreed, but as an author option the table switch is handy if you're checking
whether they degrade gracefully or not. I'd agree it needn't be mandatory

> >  Load/Play background sounds
> >  All other proprietary extensions not mentioned above
> Like Java and JavaScript.
> More control of objects is desired. I would like to see the ability to
> (1) not load objects above a certain size (or at least to give a dialog
>   or choice in loading them)
> (2) not load certain types of objects inline (such as loading audio/* or 
>   video/*)
> (3) not load specific objects (by name or MD5/CRC32), such as 
>   the JumpingText Java applet
> (4) not load objects (such as Java or JavaScipt or ActiveX) from specific 
>   sites (I'm less worried about security glitches as using a complex Java 
>   applet that runs fine on the author's nifty 64MB machine but crashes 
>   the mere 16MB machine I happen to be surfing the web with

These are very sensible suggestions indeed.

All the best,



Iain Logan, Langholm, Dumfriesshire - Chartered Transport Consultant

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 1997 17:21:03 UTC