Netscape 6: How to use Eudora for Mailto?

Posted by: squareman

Netscape 6: How to use Eudora for Mailto? - 11/07/01 03:50 PM

Just downloaded NS6.2 and upgraded from 4.73. I used to have a patch that allowed all HTML mailto's to use Eudora. I cannot find a patch or an instruction on how to do this for 6.2. <br><br>Anyone have any clues as to how I can switch this fromt he Netscape mail defaults to the email client fo my choosing?<br><br>
Posted by: squareman

Holy crap! - 11/07/01 05:22 PM

Okay, I did some digging around and here's what I found: Pre 6 versions could be hacked so mailto links would boot up your email client of choice (because 4.x was Applescript enabled!) - you can't do that with 6. So the only way I could get it to use Eudora for email links was to NOT install the email and news module (which now leaves me high and dry for a news client). Crap. Utter utter crap. I don't WANT the same code base as other platforms, I want a freaking browser that does what I want it to. <br><br>And where did drag and drop of graphics go? I now have to right click a graphic and say "save as" to save it. I can no longer just drag and drop a graphic to my desktop or to a folder (that creates a text clipping of the graphic's location). Jesus, how much more un-Mac-like could this be? <br><br>I said it with 6.0--and I'm saying it with 6.2--they've made it so unfriendly for the average user they've forced the users to consider other browsers. <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Holy crap! - 11/07/01 08:25 PM

Agreed--but I've felt that way about Netscape for some time. I know that it's MS, but I use IE in part because I can tell it what email client I want to use, and it does what I want it to. It makes me feel so powerful I can barely stand it <br><br>And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Netscape 6: How to use Eudora for Mailto? - 11/07/01 09:17 PM

The Mozilla open source project, which provides all the code which Netscape now uses, is run by volunteers. And just as Mozilla ~.92 still had many problems, Netscape 6.0 was a mess. (Netscape simply adds their advertising, links, etc. to Mozilla/Fozilla).<br><br>Since Netscape and MSIE have always been mediocre news readers (at best), the simplest solution is to simply delete the mail/news components and use something like one of the news readers if that interests you. They do a better job of keeping preferred usenet groups updated, downloading messages, et al than any web browser.<br><br>Back in the good old days before the WWW came along and cluttered the Internet the news reader each person used was essentially the equivalent of today's web browser in terms of use. The modern versions of the same freeware applications are vastly more useful and powerful than any web browser.<br><br>I don't see what the issue is. Just get rid of all the junk relating to audio, email, news watcher, etc. and download Mozilla .98. It has less junk added to it than Netscape 6.2. Or simply use NS 6.2 if you don't want the hassle.<br><br>http://www.mozilla.org<br><br>Use of Mozilla (carbon so use with 9 or X) allows you to support the open source movement. Many interesting things are already available for OS X thanks to them and the Linux folks.<br><br>Using MSIE makes Bill Gates happy. If you can think of any reason for doing that than go ahead. He after all is the one that drove Netscape out of the browser business and the reason it is open source. (MOSAIC) Netscape was at one time THE browser on the Internet. When the monopolistic practices of your competitor make it impossible to compete, it's impossible to compete. But the open source guys have done an excellent job.<br><br>Netscape has never supported drag/drop. The open source project individualizes Mozilla for platforms as much as possible, but it is also unreasonable to expect every platform feature at least at this stage. <br><br>I have BBEdit 6.5 and Photoshop 6 at startup with either OS 9 or X. Then when I happen to want text or a graphic I have something handy to paste them in. I don't find this inconvenient. And it's one less piece of Micro$loth software I have to worry about.<br><br>My comments regarding MSIE or any other Micro$loth project are not intended to offend any Mac users. They're merely intended as a suggestion that it's often wise to remember who one's friends are. :)<br><br>
Posted by: TreeBeard

Re:Yep I did it... - 11/08/01 03:33 AM

but I am not at all clever enough to explain what I did, here.<br>I do know that it worked fine for me; <br>click on any "mail to:" Link in Netscape 6.1 and not only open your mail app(for me this is Eudora)but also to open a new mail addressed to the html "mail to:" link, upon which I clicked ... ready to start typing in... want to know how I did it? .. well,.. Michael Coyle told me that my instructions repeatedly resulted in him getting a message saying his Netscape preferences were corrupt and thus he refused to post my hack, until I could make it "idiot proof".<br><br>Thus I am sure that I would have to lead someone through the minefield so to speak...and yet may still have problems due to the fact that we all have different systems and thought processes. I have not yet installed Netscape 6.2 and though I have been advised to.. I have never used Mozilla since M5(which froze me up) I have and use MS IE (for manipulation of mac.com)... <br>I use Netscape as my main browser for everything else. I did however make a boo boo with my Netscape prefs(or at least I suspected I had due to MC's results above)since I had a small security breach in that my mailbox started filling up with SPAM.. Though this and the subsequent reading that Mozzilla .093, or .094(i forget which) had a mail security issue, led me to disable Netscape 6.1 and go back to my firm favorite (which believe it or not is Netscape 4.77). <br>As I started out saying.. I now suspect that this was my boo boo in that I had allowed my email address to be visible somehow to some bot or other at some site... via switching prefs around...Whatever, it is sufficiently annoying to suddenly be bombarded by SPAM when I have otherwise enjoyed five years of SPAMfree net use. It may be that this all had nothing to do with Netscape.<br>I have not really discussed this with anyone else though I did post a lengthy discourse which like this missive, may just make your head spin and be otherwise useless to you. Here<br>I am however willing to discuss this with you or anyone who knows more about what I am doing than I do.<br><br>=============================================================<br>| "Behold the Turtle, he maketh no progress ==== until he sticketh out his neck." |<br>=============================================================
Posted by: TreeBeard

Re:Yep I did it...N6<Eudora that is - 11/08/01 06:46 AM

damn that timeout on editing messages<br><br>=============================================================<br>| "Behold the Turtle, he maketh no progress ==== until he sticketh out his neck." |<br>=============================================================
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Netscape 6: How to use Eudora for Mailto? - 11/08/01 09:48 AM

Treebeard's hack, not as well known, I've seen (and used) before, altho I seem to have better luck with the text editor (BBEdit in my case) hack of the Netscape Pref file.<br><br>Am uncertain if Treebeard means John Welch or Mike Welch. John Welch, formerly of MacCentral, who independently writes articles for MacTech magazine and assorted web sites, is person I most associate with Netscape Pref file hacks. He usually writes Applescripts (or did in the bad old days) to fix assorted bugs in the Pref file related to "mailto:" and Stuffit Deluxe/Expander confusion.<br><br>I believe he also had a hack which fixed the sudden quit problems some had with Netscape 4.75, also of the pref file. I believe, but may be wrong, that he had the "unofficial Eudora support" web site for many years (can't find URL) which provided all sorts of useful info regarding all Mac email clients.<br><br>John Welch, at any rate, comes from a *nix background, now Linux I believe, and has contributed (a little I believe) to the Mozilla project when Netscape open sourced it in 1999. The origin of versions of 4.7x since 1999 are unclear to me, but I believe it was a project that only Netscape continued to support as the differences between 4.7x and 4.78 are relatively minor, generally related to a specific bug or two.<br><br>The Mozilla group of open source geek programmers, all working on a volunteer basis of course, got off to a very rocky start because of several major components, copyrighted, which had to be completely rewritten because open source material of course does not contain proprietary (copyrighted) code.<br><br>Netscape 5 (early Mozilla in the late .8x range) was a disaster, but really just a trial balloon. Most people in the PC and Mac communities didn't have a clue what open source was all about and thought they were still dealing with Netscape. While Netscape did extensive fund the whole project in many ways, it is non-profit naturally (hence mozilla.org for URL). Once again, all you get with "Netscape 6.x" is some different icons, bookmarks, and ties to the old Netscape portal. If you want the latter then use Netscape.<br><br>If you want to be up to date on the open source project, however, virtually any experienced *nix, Linux, or Mac programmer will suggest you use Mozilla (both OS9 & X, same version as carbon I believe).<br><br>PROBLEMS WITH EUDORA<br><br>I've had no luck hacking the Mozilla equivalents of Netscape 6.1 or 6.2 to fix the old bug relating to internet config not being used. The Mozilla people have tried to get around this problem, as well as those specific to the Windoze platform, by initiating an approach where all helper apps (except Stuffit Expander I believe) are added by the user.<br><br>This seems to work rather well, but is a pain in the neck and doesn't work with "mailto:" (Mozilla may also default to Quick Time; don't remember). For Real Audio or other helper apps simply add file type/creator as with specifying/changing helper in Netscape/Mozilla earlier versions.<br><br>KLUDGES<br><br>I've earlier mentioned that I run BBEdit 6.5 and Photoshop 6 all the time in background regardless of what I'm doing. That provides an easy way to copy/paste virtually all text and graphics and they wind up where I want them and in what format that way. For example, if you drag/drop text to desk top with MSIE and file is too big for SimpleText in OS9 then you have to use BBEdit or something anyway. Most text editors are also vastly superior in terms of editing capabilities, so why mess around with SimpleText (MSIE) in the first place.<br><br>Certain types of graphics can't be copy/pasted into Photoshop. This frequently is because the jerk who wrote the HTML doesn't want you to have it or is a klutz, in order words a Micro$loth HTML type. Easily solved. Launch Opera and after doing a "copy source" (with Mozilla) with control-click (or right mouse button), paste the URL for the .jpg or whatever into Opera and download it.<br><br>Sooner or later you will find a .jpg, .gif, or whatever that MSIE will not drag/drop.<br><br>If you don't want to fool around with Opera, you surely have an FTP client you use (altho in this day and age too many people think an http client....web browser.....is all they need) and you can paste the URL in it. Anarchie (or Interarchy) and Crush FTP are good examples of FTP clients of good Mac FTP clients.<br><br>By using an FTP client or Opera, which seems to have an industrial strength ability to function as http client, you've got any and all graphics covered. You will also get the source .jpg which you may want in preference to the WYSIWUG file. Your mileage may vary.<br><br>If using an FTP client you wind up "downloading" the graphic which is no slower than drag/drop with MSIE. If you load it into Opera, big surprise, you can drag drop it, *whatever* it is, similar to MSIE but better. Trust me, sooner or later you will find a graphic that only an FTP client (or Opera) can grab.<br><br>My further reasons for using Mozilla (although I prefer OmniWeb in X due to it's remarkable display because it's cocoa) instead of I.E. If you can't hack the current pref file of Mozilla (or Netscape 6.x, with 6.1 and 6.2, like later Mozillas, and are infinitely better) you may still find a combination of applications superior for obtaining graphics.<br><br>Two kludges for the email problem with any version of Netscape/Mozilla. I also always have Eudora 5.1 or whatever running in the background (or stuffed in the Dock) to gather email. Since it's handy, why not copy/paste the URL mailto: link into a new, open Eudora window?<br><br>Another kludge is to simply blind c.c. yourself with Messenger when Mozilla launches it due to clicking on a mailto: link? No big deal if you want a copy. Most messages left via such a link are short anyway and formatting etc. will be fine when received in Eudora.<br><br>After all, most users of MSIE also tend to use MSOE, two applications, so why not use Mozilla and Eudora (MailSmith or whatever)? By filling out your I-net tools with a news reader for usenet, as earlier suggested instead of a lousy browser, plus an ftp client (I still use the old Anarchie with OS 9.x) or Opera you've got a much more comprehensive set of tools.<br><br>The tendency to make a browser be all things, even Mozilla/Netscape for those who use it for email, in the last few years will sooner or later limit you to having an inadequate number of tools.<br><br>My personal impression is that users in recent years, circa 1997-present, have become a little lazy. A variety of tools results IMHO in a better way to do all things. SSH is a valuable new addition, thanks to OS X, and there are the traditional telnet clients (or use of OS X) etc. A client for Gopher, WAIS and other Internet services is rarely needed, but sooner or later something like Telnet or SSH is going to be needed so why not get acquainted with a variety of tools?<br><br>A little thought, especially through selection of a variety of tools, with a good text editor being a valuable addition (BBEdit Lite is free if you don't want to pay for BBEdit), results in the sort of flexibility for which the Mac is typical. While you can do the same thing with a PC the frustration level, not to mention getting everything compatible without assorted text formatting and/or graphics problems, is a good reason for using a Mac.<br><br>Been there. Done that. Have an HP PC 1.3GHz right behind me which I'm using less and less now thanks to OS X. Yes, I have "upgraded" it (a sarcastic comment if I ever heard one) from Win2K Pro to Win XP Pro recently. MSIE is a much better application under Windows. Sorry, but it's true.<br><br>But you know what, I've gone through some of the steps above trying to get everything to work together, as outlined above, and it's a major pain with Windows. I suggest that anyone with a Mac take advantage of its features.<br><br>I haven't browsed the net or used an email client with the PC since X 10.1 shipped. Free at last. :)<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: squareman

128K_Mac, please explain... - 11/08/01 10:58 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Netscape has never supported drag/drop. The open source project individualizes Mozilla for platforms as much as possible, but it is also unreasonable to expect every platform feature at least at this stage. <p><hr></blockquote><p>What are you talking about? From NN 2 through NN 4.x one could simply drag any graphic from a browser window to any folder or the desktop to save a copy of the graphic. So Netscape HAS always supported drag and drop up to this point. One cannot do that with NN 6.x. I find it ironic, however, that I can finally drag and drop text from the browser window to my desktop to create a text clipping when I couldn't with earlier versions. So what is it that you are talking about when you say it doesn't support drag/drop?<br><br>As far as the statement: <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The open source project individualizes Mozilla for platforms as much as possible, but it is also unreasonable to expect every platform feature at least at this stage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually, it is completely reasonable from a user perspective. Joe Shmoe and especially Joe Shmoe's grandmother using a Mac at home do not care about the politics or the history of the NN/IE wars. They do not care about the open-source movement and the inherent slow-development cycles. The "same code base" argument is fine for developers working on it, but it means nothing to the average home user--they want their Mac browser to behave like a Mac program. If it can't be delivered, they won't use it. We're now going on something like year 3 without a significant Mac-like product update from NS; this is what's really killing them in the minds of the Mac user today.<br><br>I agree--Microsoft gets me all worked up into a frothy rage, but the browser they offer is more user-friendly and has better tools built-in. It also behaves as I expect a Mac program to behave (I'm not yet using X so I can't compare with OmniWeb or Opera, and iCab suffers so much when surfing around the non-compliant Web that it's not worth the trouble). <br><br>Remember, Netscape did not suffer on the Mac platform directly from the MS monopoly games. It was more of a fallout of the monopoly games MS successfully carried out on the Windows platform. That said, one thing to keep in mind is that if Mac users are successful at unilaterally killing Microsoft interest in the platform -- then the Mac is mortally wounded (this is what gets me into a "froth", that freaking co-dependency on a Monopoly). This will be the case until Macs either gain more market share or MS loses more market share to someone else. Until that day, the best way to hurt MS is don't use a Windows machine; the best way to hurt the Mac is to drive away developers. Unfortunately, this means bringing MS to the table, because what they do, thousands of other little developer sheep do. At this point in time, using MS products on a Mac can be helpful to the health of Apple.<br><br>I just simply cannot deny the pleasure I have in using IE5 though (I wouldn't TOUCH any of the previous versions) -- in fact, it wasn't until THIS week that I finally changed my default browser from NN to IE. It had been 4.73, but now that 6.2 is on my system, I've switched the default to IE5. Unfortunately, I have to leave 6.2 on my system for QAing Web sites that I design -- otherwise, I would actually leave my default browser open to NN 4.73. No matter what, I still find it necessary to leave both browsers open at all times. There's just too many developers out there not QAing their sites on the Mac at all; therefore, I frequently find it necessary when hitting a broken site to try it in the other browser.<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 128K_Mac, please explain... - 11/08/01 05:10 PM

I agree completely on your comments about MS. Although I'd never thought about it as co-dependency, you're exactly right. At the same time that it's dangerous to concede anything to MS, however, it's also important to tell it like it is (good ol' Howard Cossell ). And simply, at this point, the only Mac-like, completed browser is the one made by MS. If the Wired review is to be believed (see today's front page on MacMinute), then MS Office for X is in the same ball park. Personally, I have nothing against MS making useful software for the Mac. I do care that they control such a large chunk of the OS market. That's where the problem is.<br><br>And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 11/08/01 08:12 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: 128K_Mac, please explain... - 11/08/01 06:14 PM

I know where you're coming from and I don't disagree.<br><br>But Micro$oft bashers don't concede anything to a Micro$oft application. smile If you can figure out what I mentioned as options, there are other ways. As long as there are, I plan to use them. :)<br><br>I've owned every version of Word and Excel since 1.0 (1.01 was first version of Word that shipped; both shipped first for the Mac, not the PC) and every version of "Office" since Day 1. That's particular due to fact I own a good many more PCs in my business, always have, than Macs.<br><br>But that doesn't mean I have to like it. I have purchased my last copy of Office for either the two Macs and one PC I normally use. I have found other ways there as well. smile I wouldn't have bothered with XP on my PC (and may reinstall Win2K) if I hadn't been curious.<br><br>My installation of XP on my PC is another rant. I have many rants. You've not seen them all. :)<br><br>But given any excuse for something that works just as well, or better, I dump M$. All my servers are now Linux, for example, a six month conversion process. We got a "deal" on 10 (I think) boxes of XP Pro, individual (not network) and that's also part of reason I installed XP.<br><br>But my time on the PC is getting awfully close to 10%, Mac 90%, and I may very well go back to Win2K Pro because of GUI for when I have to use it.<br><br>As elsewhere mentioned, I've had no choice but to use Micro$loth products of one kind or another since 1981. Uncle Bill has a good deal of my money. I've spent the last year or two working towards the point in time when he gets -0-. Not there yet. Getting there. :)<br><br>(PS: I first saw Word X and Excel X running on a Mac about three months ago. Am familiar with Office X. They were well advanced betas.)<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 128K_Mac, please explain... - 11/08/01 08:44 PM

I'd love to hear (I mean read) your XP rant. So far the only person I know who has installed XP has had one problem after another, but from what I read that may be unusual. So make me think otherwise!<br><br>And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: 128K_Mac, please explain... - 11/09/01 11:06 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'd love to hear (I mean read) your XP rant.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No you wouldn't. For one thing I haven't used the XP install more than about 3 or 4 hours total since doing it. <br><br>Half of that time was spent trying to install some applications software I prefer to the software Uncle Bill kindly provides and all but insists I use.<br><br>The installation process, about 4 hours itself, is another story I prefer not to remember, let alone recount.<br><br>That's about 8 hours of time invested on my part. Time "used" (a euphemism) is only about 2 hours. Last I knew it was working great, i.e., with respect to those applications which were working.<br><br>Since none of the applications software I use on the PC was working the relevance of "working" becomes questionable.<br><br>Since my previous post I've seen to it that the situation will be remedied. I've used MS-DOS and assorted versions of Windoze since 1981, not always (rarely, actually) out of choice. Have always done all my own installations.<br><br>One might say that the PC with XP Pro installed is becoming "history" as you read this. Am uncertain of details. I'm having nothing to do with the return of Win2k Pro mentioned in previous post.<br><br>
Posted by: TreeBeard

Re: Netscape 6: How to use Eudora for Mailto? - 11/10/01 05:50 AM

yeah I agree that BBEdit is the thing to use for Netscape 6 hacking.<br>but I still prefer to use Netscape 4.77 over all other browsers though I have to admit that IE 5 and Netscape 6 have little difference in vying for second place .. though I much preferred Opera before the latest beta<br><br>=============================================================<br>| "Behold the Turtle, he maketh no progress ==== until he sticketh out his neck." |<br>=============================================================
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Netscape 6: How to use Eudora for Mailto? - 11/10/01 04:59 PM

I really hated to give up Netscape 4.78. Same for 3.04 (3.05?) and 1.12. Doesn't load a few pages using some of the new "standards" not to mention some of the new Micro$loth butchered non-standards.<br><br>The Netscape 4.7x series was a great browser and I miss it. Among other things it *didn't* have all the features that Mozilla .98 has that I don't want and which get in the way.<br><br>Trade off. And btw, I don't like the latest Opera beta (in X, haven't used the latest for OS9 much).<br><br>Son and I set up a *nice* 540c he picked up cheap somewhere for his wife this afternoon. She's mostly going to use like a PDA plus a little word processing and email. We also put Netscape 1.12 on it and did a little (careful) surfing for old times sake.<br><br>Loading pages like MacMinute and MacInTouch went great. Then tried a few geek, NeXT, OS X & etc. sites with limited graphics and mostly text. Information. Thought that was supposed to be what the Internet was all about.<br><br>Avoided sites with lots of Java, frames, Flash, et al. as that often bombs 1.12.<br><br>Once upon a time, and some still exist, the most common banner on a home page was: "Best viewed with Netscape."<br><br>Are all of the HTML "improvements" really needed? (other than to create jobs for web site construction?)<br><br>Yeah, I know, some of the newer standards and features are interesting. And the more new "standards" there are the more abuse of them there is. I think GoLive is more interesting to work with than PageMill and, before that, just BBEdit.<br><br>And I have a DSL line so I don't have the fun many have with their 56k dialups in loading some of those nifty new pages.<br><br>Trade offs can be frustrating. Wish 4.78 still handled everything on a few sites I visit.<br><br>Off topic as usual....nothing new.<br><br>
Posted by: squareman

Re: Netscape 6: How to use Eudora for Mailto? - 11/10/01 06:24 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>...Avoided sites with lots of Java, frames, Flash, et al. as that often bombs 1.12.<br>Once upon a time, and some still exist, the most common banner on a home page was: "Best viewed with Netscape."<br>Are all of the HTML "improvements" really needed? (other than to create jobs for web site construction?)<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>I remember how reliable 1.x was and how buggy it was to switch to 2.x just to be able to see all the sites being built in frames. 3.x helped things quite a bit, and the 4 series was a big improvement. That's mainly why I'm so disappointed in 6 - it's just fights the way I'm used to using Netscape and my Macintosh (and how much more MS-like could that be, to fight my way of working?). <br><br>As far as those "best viewed with Netscape" bugs and banners go, I rember them well too. We wouldn't have needed those if BOTH Netscape and Microsoft had made their browsers W3C compliant from the beginning. As it stood, they both violated Web standards all over the place, and MS built IE to use all those proprietary whiz-bangs right from the word go.<br><br>I used to work with a devloper that started the grass-roots movement of "Best viewed with ANY browser" movement. That is what the Web was all about. That is what the Internet in total is all about. Standards. Build systems to a standard and an end user can use whatever compliant client they want to access it. Of course Microsoft is trying to destroy that with their proprietary .Net strategy (and unfortunately there's millions of people ready and willing to hand ownership of the net over to them - bastards). That developer's Web site is still up and promoting the sentiment: http://www.anybrowser.org. Specifically, check out this page: http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/.<br><br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Netscape 6: How to use Eudora for Mailto? - 11/11/01 01:00 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>That's mainly why I'm so disappointed in 6 - it's just fights the way I'm used to using Netscape and my Macintosh (and how much more MS-like could that be, to fight my way of working?).<p><hr></blockquote><p>Touche.<br><br>I'll buy that. :)<br><br>But I was in my Micro$loth bashing mode when I made my post. ;)<br><br>And now we have Tim Berners-Lee disagreeing with W3C, which he founded, over the royalty issue, with IBM lined up in opposition to the Linux folks they plan to spend $1 Bil to support and all sorts of strange bedfellows.<br><br>(Most complete coverage IMO at The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/ Various articles.)<br><br>Tim Berners-Lee:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>When I see any Web site claim to be only readable using particular hardware or software, I cringe -- they are pining for the bad old days when each piece of information need a different program to access it.There was a time when I would have believed that the ethos of the Internet, and understanding of the importance as an independent medium, was pervasive enough to ensure that things would be acceptably open. However, the latest events have shown that this is not the case, and legislation is therefore required before we can have the sort of world in which I want to live, work, and bring up children.<p><hr></blockquote><p>(specific link at The Register not available)<br><br>We now also have the W3C compliant browser of the W3C, but, big surprise, it only runs on Windows. Not Mac. Not *nix. Just Windows.<br><br>Best end here before I slip into my "the Internet was a better place before WWW was invented and there was only usenet, telnet, WAIS, Gopher, & etc. mode." :P<br><br>Nothing new, really. Now we've got W3C being bashed by open source community, with some threatening to fork the Internet.<br><br>"Online" has always been an interesting place. :)<br><br>