Re: TM symbol problems.. a solution

["Laura Lemay, Killer of Trees" <lemay -at- LNE -dot- COM>]

>> The <SUP> tag is HTML 3.0 and is only supported by one or two browsers.
>The Big
>> Three (Netscape, Mosaic, lynx) do not, as far as I know.  What browser
>were you
>> using to see this where it worked?
>>
>Mosaic 2.0 final beta and Netsape 1.1 and 1.2.

A quick test of Netscape 1.1 on the mac and on unix shows it does not
work on those browsers.   Netscape 1.2 is Windows only, as is the Mosaic
Final beta (the most recent Mosaic for Mac doesn't have it either). And, of
course, most older browsers won't have it.

I'll accept that it works on the browsers you mention, all of which
are Windows only (it also doesn't work in the most recent beta of
MacMosaic).  But given that there are dozens of other browsers out
there, I'll still stick my my claim that it's too early to use <SUP>.

>Netscaep 1.1 should handle virutally all 3.0 tags
>as mos of what was considered as "netsacpe enhancement" was implemented into
>HTML3.0. not officially, but the same results.

Virtually all HTML 3.0 tags?  Oh?  Netscape has Math?  Figures?  Tabs?
Client-side image maps? Divisions?  Banners?  Style sheets?  True
internationalization?  Do tell.  Not in any versions I've seen.

HTML 3.0 is an enormous proposal, with dozens of new features that will
completely change how HTML looks today.  No one has implemented all of it,
nor should they, as the document is still is discussion and changing by the
day.  Check out http://www.hpl.hp.co.uk/people/dsr/html/CoverPage.html --
thats the HTML 3.0 specification.  That's what defines what's "official".

Netscape has centering, backgrounds, tables, and apparently more of
the new character tags, all of which are indeed part of HTML 3.0.  A few of
Netscape's own independent extensions have been incorporated
into HTML 3.0 (image/text alignment in particular), but many more have
not (fonts, rule line adjustments, blink).  Of course, more browsers are
now supporting the Netscape extensions, but the fact that they are
widely available does not make them standard.

I'm not slamming the Netscape tags or insisting that designers should
use only HTML 2.0. I use Netscape tags and HTML 3.0 tags myself in my own
pages, and I enjoy the flexibility that they offer over standard
HTML 2.0.  But I'm also careful to design my pages so that they are readable
in older and non-netscape browsers, or where compatibility is
impossible, to give the reader options for the type of page they want to
view (for example, a page of HTML 3.0 tables, or a page with the same table
in text-only format).

Some Web authors would argue that Netscape and Mosaic make up the vast
majority of the market, so designing for those browsers and ignoring all
others is fine.  But vast majority is not all, and there are always
tradeoffs to be made between reaching the widest possible audience and
having the design flexibility offered by Netscape and other more
cutting-edge (for lack of a better word) browsers.

The best way to guarantee the widest possible audience  is to know exactly
who supports what and why and the current state of the standard, to code
appropriately, and to test, test, test,  on as many browsers and on as
many platforms as is humanly possible given deadlines and budgets.

Ooops, I seem to have turned this into a bit of a rant.  My apologies.


Laura