Re: An HTML 3.0 page to cut your browser's teeth on (2)
Thu, 16 Mar 1995 21:01:45 +0500

lilley wrote:
> The result, validated with the Mon 13-Mar-95 09:51:25 DTD, is at
> It is being served as text/html at the moment, because I wanted to see how
> existing browsers coped with it:

Q: the way to serve as HTML 3.0 would be what? ? I've just looked at
Dan's "Towards Graceful Deployment of Tables in HTML" (sorry my
server is down :*( so I don't have the URL) where he recommends the
use of the DOCTYPE statement but acknowledges that the installed base
of servers generally determine content type before opening the file.
> Mosaic for X 2.5b4 shows both the FIG graphic *and* the textual alternative.
> It correctly hides the footnotes, but cannot display ° or   and
> puts in a bizarre "broken image" NCSA logo where there is no image. Curious.
> It displays the table OK, but without the superscripted text. So it is sometimes
> displaying the content without the tags, and sometimes hiding the content.

I've been experimenting with tables+forms (i.e together) in Mosaic
for X 2.5b, Arena, and Netscape. The latter handles everything fine
on X, but not Windows: text input areas and submit boxes have to be
outside the table or they don't show. Arena hangs and core dumps.
Mosaic used to do something of the job in its beta version (I forget
how much exactly) but the new release just shows a wire frame. I
submitted a bug report and was amazed when they got back to me the
next day! (I submitted a few in earlier days that never got answered).
They very kindly pointed out that the release notes mention that
markup can't yet be handled inside tables (I had read & forgot) but
that their programmers are working feverishly to fix it. So currently
the only browser I use that handles tables+forms is X Netscape 1.1b.
I hope to include tables+forms in my WWW3 tutorial. My test example
is at <URL:>. I don't know
for sure that it's HTML 3.0 compliant - is there a publically
available validation service like the HaLsoft one for HTML 2.0 ?
(I appreciate that it's not a standard yet but neither is HTML 2.0)
I'd rather not install my own unless it's quick & painless.
> I do not have access to emacs-w3 - I tried to install it once, but the
> meta-x-alt-f3 stuff was a bit beyond an emacs-virgin like myself (I can load

At last - another poor loser like me! By the time I've done
ctr-esc-alt-shift-meta-xyz my fingers and brain are too tangled
up to do anything else.. Chris, we're doomed to living for eternity
outside the Garden of Emacs :*(

> and save and move the cursor, that's about it). I would be pleased to get
> reports from users of other HTML3.0 (or getting that way) browsers; please
> state what it did right, what it did wrong, the platform and version. I
> will summarise to the list unless you ask me not to for a particular browser.

Well I thought I'd just throw my $20 worth right into the list.
(i wish the $0.2 people would say so up front so I could skip it).

___________________________________________________________________ -=*<URL:>*=- 1 (301) 552 0272
Web Developer's Virtual Library * CyberWeb SoftWare * WWW Databases
HTML * CGI * Training * Transatlantic Liaison * Per Ardua, Ad Astra