From pycyn@aol.com Thu Dec 06 18:15:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 7 Dec 2001 02:15:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 91715 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2001 02:15:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2001 02:15:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2001 02:15:47 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.d0.1f18f7c1 (2614) for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 21:15:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 21:15:39 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] [WWWW] Big update! To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d0.1f18f7c1.2941804b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_d0.1f18f7c1.2941804b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/6/2001 12:53:20 PM Central Standard Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > > Bite the bullet and make it look good for hoi polloi; I'm sure the > > royal eunuchs can manage to do well with a version for the masses > > (witness how well they write instruction manuals). > > I am. As I have always been doing. > > Maybe if you would shut up and listen to what I say, you wouldn't have > to keep telling me the same thing over and over again. > But, as I said with regret, you keep doing the same thing over and over again, hence my repeated > comments. I am aware that you are doing your best > to make something work on Netscape that works fine on other things and that > is a nice feature, but backwards. If most people use Netscape, then the > right way to do things is to get it good on Netscape and then do as much as > possible to get it looking good on other browsers. You won't succeed, of > course, since -- as you point out -- nobody plays entirely by the putative > rules (else how could they have proprietary or thumb-your-nose public > domain software). But at least you are shooting for the largest > participation. Of course, telling people that the system they use is crap > is probably not good PR either, especially if it is basically working fine > for them and what you have to offer is expensive and/or unreliable. All of which is apparently moot, since Netscape is said to be hardly more used than a variety craftsman jobbies and it is IE that needs working to. So the same remarks apply mutatis mutandis. : If Netscape is the generally used browser, IT IS the standard and all the committees in the world saying otherwise are just breaking wind (as witness the careful attention that others pay them -- and also the fact that they did not take actual use into consideration when they set up their -- snicker -- standards.) --part1_d0.1f18f7c1.2941804b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/6/2001 12:53:20 PM Central Standard Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:

> Bite the bullet and make it look good for hoi polloi; I'm sure the
> royal eunuchs can manage to do well with a version for the masses
> (witness how well they write instruction manuals).

I am. As I have always been doing.

Maybe if you would shut up and listen to what I say, you wouldn't have
to keep telling me the same thing over and over again.

But, as I said with regret, you keep doing the same thing over and over again, hence my repeated

comments. I am aware that you are doing your best to make something work on Netscape that works fine on other things and that is a nice feature, but backwards. If most people use Netscape, then the right way to do things is to get it good on Netscape and then do as much as possible to get it looking good on other browsers. You won't succeed, of course, since -- as you point out -- nobody plays entirely by the putative rules (else how could they have proprietary or thumb-your-nose public domain software). But at least you are shooting for the largest participation. Of course, telling people that the system they use is crap is probably not good PR either, especially if it is basically working fine for them and what you have to offer is expensive and/or unreliable

.

All of which is apparently moot, since Netscape is said to be hardly more used than a variety craftsman jobbies and it is IE that needs working to. So the same remarks apply mutatis mutandis. :

<Understand that Netscape 4.* *DRASTICALLY*VIOLATES* several major
standards.>

If Netscape is the generally used browser, IT IS the standard and all the committees in the world saying otherwise are just breaking wind (as witness the careful attention that others pay them -- and also the fact that they did not take actual use into consideration when they set up their -- snicker -- standards.)

--part1_d0.1f18f7c1.2941804b_boundary--