[linux-elitists] Re: Mosaic features lost
Wed Sep 13 08:42:09 PDT 2000
> ...anyone here have specific experience?
Well, Don Marti and Richard Coutoure were using a fairly nice script to
scrub ads - as it was a script, I see no reason it couldn't smush all
bastardized attempts at scaling to +1 and -1 maximum too.
Before the advent of the <Font> scaling people used to use <H6> for their
smaller text. The nice thing is, at least a more SGML-ish browser could
tell this was content they cared about.
Marking up as special, content which is not special, is a bug. 'Nuff said.
> > What I do not generally see is the ability to declare the use of a
> > different font for Bold and Em/Italics purposes.
> ?? How do you mean?
> > OB ELITIST: It's been years now with the Mozilla project, the licensing
> > world has improved, but Netscape/mozilla still have not added back in
> > the font control features I liked best in Mosaic. It really ticks me
> > off! And don't tell me to whine on their wishlist - I did that in great
> > verbosity and basically, everyone things I'm talking about CSS. Dorks.
> Actually, what *did* Mosaic offer in this regard?
1) you can still use Mosaic and see - it's a debian package. While strictly
speaking it was open source, UC Kansas stopped hosting it ages ago, so its
source is pretty hard to find, unless that's in the debian tree too.
2) but, allow me to describe :)
Basically, every tag which is a Container Type was modifiable seperately on
the preferences for Font, Size, and Color. (Okay the color wasn't that
exciting, you only had the basic 16 colors to use.) This allowed many cool
For example, I could make all the headings 1 thru 5 the Copperplate font. I
like it, it's crisp and readable, and has smallcaps so it looks, well, like
a heading. But I could declare them to be different colors instead of dif't
sizes. My usual setting was 1 2 and 3 were a few points larger than my
normal font, and 4 and 5 were the same size. 5 was the same color as normal
too since it isn't that "far" a difference. 6, since people were treating
it special but differently, I used an entirely different font for.
For another example, a friend of mine in L.A. who has tunnel vision (good
color vision and acuity, but limited "screen size" if you will) set hers
up so that "more important" settings were *smaller* not larger, so she could
be more certain to see them.
I can't get either effect with "modern technology".
> ...and note that browser technology has been largely driven by lock-in
> and proprietization battles (IE v. Netscape) and online vendor/content
> fascist imperitives. Junkbuster and content-modifying proxies (above)
> are a backlash to this.
Yep. Just find one that lets you describe how to modify the content,
(rather than assume it's only ads that you want to blow off) and have at.
Me, I use lynx, it works great. Everything comes in the same size and I
even reset my console font so I like it too. (admitted, SuSE made doing
that pretty easy.)
Now if I could get a console-mode browser, which only endeavored to be
*mildly* graphical, I could much more enjoy my surfing; it's my opinion
that between X and NS I might as well be a pedestrian on the infohypeway,
DSL or not. Sadly it looks like Arachne is a long way off if ever, and
Opera is almost certainly X based. But, if anybody wants to accept a
specification... we could probably start with the 'links' code. Or we
could try for a GUI wrapper around lynx? hmm.
* Heather * The "cutting edge" is getting rather dull. -- Andy Purshottam
More information about the linux-elitists