Subject: Re[2]: Accessing an FTP site from Internet Explorer

From: "JAMIE GRAVES" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 06:35:36 PST

If Jason is concerned about obtaining an effective web browser, I 
     would have to support Jim's opinion. As a developer, MS IE is nothing 
     but a hindrance. I would say tailor your web site in compliance with 
     Netscape.
     
                                                        - [email-masked]

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Accessing an FTP site from Internet Explorer
Author:  [email-masked] at INTERNET_GATEWAY
Date:    7/13/96 11:15 AM

Switch to Netscape!  It's better anyway. 
Jim
     
 ----------
From:  Jason Fesler[SMTP:[email-masked]] 
Sent:  Friday, July 12, 1996 1:44 PM
To:  wu-ftpd
Subject:  Re: Accessing an FTP site from Internet Explorer
     
At 10:19 AM 7/12/96 -0400, you wrote:
     
>We have an intranet web site which accesses our ftp site, however IE = 
>v3.0 will not access it, mainly because it is called www.mydomain.com, = 
>Netscape has no trouble using ftp://www.mydomain.com but IE refuses to = 
>work with this and always claims the URL doesn't exist.
     
IE has problems with FTP syntax, and makes a terrible FTP browser, from 
what I have experienced.  It makes a great web browser, but a lousy FTP 
browser.
     
 --
  Jason Fesler                            [email-masked] 
  Admin, CalWeb Internet Services          [email-masked] 
  I like my Usenet over ice, please.     http://www.gigo.com 
  Disclaimer:  My /dev/null can beat your /dev/null any day.

---

From: Logan Ratner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 09:33:22 -0500 (CDT)

>but a hindrance. I would say tailor your web site in compliance with 

As a developer, I would say tailor your web-site in compliance with
*HTML STANDARDS.*  Anything else is a surefire way to alienate some part 
of your audience.  See www.w3.org for aforementioned standards.

Note however that this is getting off-topic for a wu-ftpd list.

-- 
Logan Ratner ([email-masked])   *  CRPC, Rice University, Houston
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ratner/  *  http://softlib.rice.edu/CRPC/
Big Brother is clumsy and obvious,  Its Little Cousins that worry me.
         I am not Ms. Ratner despite what the NSA may think.

---

From: Vidiot <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 14:44:38 -0500 (CDT)

Logan Ratner ([email-masked]) said:

<As a developer, I would say tailor your web-site in compliance with
<*HTML STANDARDS.*  Anything else is a surefire way to alienate some part 
<of your audience.  See www.w3.org for aforementioned standards.

Unfortunately doing so would produce a site that would be pretty dull.
As I understand it, the HTML-3 specs are still under development, which means
that you would be stuck using HTML-2 specs.  LOTS of good stuff is missing
from HTML-2.  You would be missing the neat JavaScript features if you
stayed with HTML-2.

I say develop for Netscape 2, keeping in mind that some stuff doesn't work
for all viewers.  Microshit is playing catchup and they know it.  The
users of the MS browser will have to bitch at Microshit when they go somewhere
and can't see it correctly, or as this topic originally started, can't ftp.
The wu-ftpd software is not liable for MS broswer ftp problems.

<Note however that this is getting off-topic for a wu-ftpd list.

Sorry, you are correct.
-- 
System Administrator - Finnigan FT/MS - Madison WI. <URL:http://www.ftms.com/>
e-mail: [email-masked]
phone: (608) 273-8262  fax: (608) 273-8719  voice-mail: (800) 538-7067 ext 8451
Visit - <URL:http://www.cdsnet.net/vidiot/>  (Your link to Star Trek and UPN)

---

From: Mitch Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:23:23 -0700

This thread is way off topic, HOWEVER, I must make a correction to
the last message...

/* [email-masked] [[email-masked]] writes: */

>[...]
You understand wrong.  HTML 3.2 is a released specification.

>You would be missing the neat JavaScript features if you
>stayed with HTML-2.
>
JavaScript, realistically, has little to do with the HTML itself.  It is
enclosed in a comment so you can use it will remaining compliant to the
standards.

>I say develop for Netscape 2, 
>
You have to draw the line somewhere, and following the standards is the
natural (and appropriate) place for doing it.  Nothing says you can't pull
in some new and useful features, but one should make sure it is truly
usable to their audience.  And before you pull out the Netscape has X % of
the market, don't forget a good part of that is Netscape Version 1.x.  I
won't even start arguing about how bogus those numbers are...

-- 
do svidaniya,

  ~mitch