Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Internet

W3 Releases Amaya 4.0 155

Death of Rats writes: "The World Wide Web Consortium has just released Amaya 4.0. Its a browser/development tool that is designed to test the functionality of new specs in a practical environment. Essentially, it is the client-side counterpart to Jigsaw. The new version should be pretty good, and there are binaries for Unix and Win32." I've been trying Amaya once in a while for a long time. For all the hype about Mozilla, konqueror and many others, it's interesting that the W3C's effort should get so little attention. One notable feature is that it completely integrates the page creation and page viewing aspects, though you might not see a lot of the Flashy features you'd like in a browser -- Amaya is stubbornly (or appropriately) "correct" in its adherence to W3C standards.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

W3 Releases Amaya 4.0

Comments Filter:
  • by musicmaker ( 30469 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @06:00AM (#629272) Homepage
    Well.. I just dowloaded the latest version, and it does'nt seem to work really well at all.. I have just recently started using Konqueror as my main browser because Netscape is just so useless, and M18 looks like it's heading the same way, slow and bloated.

    I tried (horribly broken) (crashed amaya completely) (page looks nasty, and didnt realy work)

    I mean is this meant to be a version 4.0 release or what? try 0.04 maybe.

    I guess it will give support for some of the more interesting things like MathML, so I guess it has it's place, but it has a long way to go yet. It's difficult to test a webpage, if it crashes the browser!
  • It's simply a comparison of W3C to any lawmaking body. You cannot say that it does not make sense, for it makes perfect sense. But I will sum it up in one sentence for you:

    The W3C is the lawmaker of the web, and if you don't like it, at least accept it.

    I hope that makes sense.

  • I've tried using Amaya to edit web material, and always found it dramatically annoying to work with.

    The problem is that in mandating that every single construction be inserted in a way that maintains the document status as "valid HTML," this leaves the problem that the UI has to build pages as a sort of "tree" into which you insert nodes. It may look "WYSIWYG," but the input side is hairy to actually use.

    I mostly compose web material by writing DocBook [] which then transforms to HTML; that provides quite decent guarantees of well-formedness and validity. Mind you, I start with something that may not be valid SGML.

    It seems to me that a more usable approach, if composing HTML, is to write it however you like, perhaps a tad messy, and then use tools like Dave Raggett's HTML Tidy [] utility.

    Amaya is well and interesting; I suspect that it is only of practical interest to people that are working specifically on HTML standardization, and of limited interest to anyone else.

  • have any windows users here used the IE5.5 crash and bug reporter, I was updating my mom's HP last night and noticed it. Methinks an analysis of the data it sends upstream would be in order.

    would be great cannon-fodder for the appeal process if it was determined to be sending user info upstream without permission.

  • So because it's Motif it's ugly? No wonder you post as an AC.

    The world is full of Motif applications, far more than any other UNIX GUI. Trust me, I've seen uglier.

    Your prejudice is showing.

  • You miss the point. If the encapsulation of encoding information will be standardizes, all encoding-specific finctions will have to be written only once (by people who understand them), and then just reused with a simple library that can just dynamically load procedures for whatever encoding it encounters, as it will be able to get encoding names from the text. That can be easily extensible without any trouble -- as opposed to Unicode, where any kind of extension causes new incompatible version of the standard to be adopted.

    Better yet, it will be safe to consider all unlabeled data to be "binary", and cause all software to preserve it in the unchanged form until someone will label it -- this will be of great help in situations where pieces of data have unknown language or can't be assigned any encoding and shouldn't be treated like a text in some language except by few programs that understand the meaning of that data. With mandatory Unicode someone has to assign nonexistent language to them to convert to Unicode at some point, thus risking that things will be distorted, as, say, data may look like valid (or invalid) UTF-8 yet be something else. With labeling it can be just labeled as data with no charset/encoding/language assigned, and all language-processing and protocol-related routines will just keep it unchanged.

  • If they really have to cater to the same people who were too stupid to adopt DSSSL

    You mean the people who were too smart to adopt DSSSL?? Have you ever seen the standard? I don't think there was ever a standard as universally trashed and quickly dismissed.

  • It was at a W3C meeting several years ago. I was working on a GUI HTML editor for a leading software company, and they came up to me and said:

    "You should make sure your output looks OK only in Amaya. By making it look right in Netscape and IE you're part of the problem"

    I replied that if we made the output render correctly in Amaya and didn't care about any other browsers, nobody would buy our product because nobody uses Amaya!

    He started SWINGING at me! After this, I never paied any attention to the W3C ever again.

  • >You have clearly missed the point of html. html is _not_ a formatting language, it is a markup language
    No, I didnt miss the point. CSS doesnt provide an easy way to accomplish the task of having a size-locked table.

    >looks like all every other all-graphics, designed for 640x480 webpages I have ever seen
    Opinion. Most of the responses I have gotten are extremely favorable, and get me plenty of business.

    >Try looking at that page on a 1600x1200 screen and see how "sexy" you think it looks.
    I do everyday. :) It is centered, the way it is meant to be. Just like it is at 800, and at 1024.

    As to your validation, that is rather odd. I just did it myself again to make sure..

    I had it validated earlier.. although I added in the comments.. I guess that'll learn ya, huh? Well, I will go fix it. Those are tiny mistakes anyways.. no big deal..

    The point is that the code is damned good compared to 90% of the sites out there, and save 4 trifling little mistakes, (that just popped up), its valid code, ALL created by frontpage.

    Its a valid tool, and a good one too.

  • so much for open standards being the cure to all evil.
  • why bother indeed!

    lets all go back to plain ASCII text (with ANSI colour for the rich people with colour monitors).

    the lowest common denominator is why Windows is popular you know.

  • Hrm, couldn't you just convert TeX output into PDF files and post them? Not really a great choice, but I don't think having TeX as a rendering engine would work well. Maybe just for math equations, but not for whole pages

    Yes, TeX is a typesetting language, made for printing. Web pages are (supposidly) independant of sizes, fonts, colors, etc. In Tex you say {\it this is emphasized}. This specifies exactly what kind of font should be used. In html you say <em>this is emphasized</em>, and the renderer is basically told "I should emphasize this". Netscape uses italics, while an html to speach browser for the blind would, well, emphasize that text.

    TeX is not html and html is not TeX. Both are meant for different things; TeX is about the final product (a printed paper), while html is about the source. I could do all kind of hacks in a TeX paper trying to get it to look just right, and my proff wouldn't notice in the final product. I could also set up tons of tables, images, frames, javascript, etc on a web page so that it looks just right on my web browser, but try to view it on another (or at a different screen resolution, or color depth) and it's brocken.

    I'm all for using a TeX rendering engine for imbedding math in html; have a <tex> tag equivalent to $$, but then you would have to support LaTeX too, and who knows what other kinds of TeX would want thier equations to render as well.

  • And before anyone out there thinks of offering a rebuttal in support for XSL, programming in XML is a silly idea

    I agree to an extent. When you first see XSL and realise that it is a real programming language (unlike CSS), it becomes tempting to see it as a panacea. In reality, it's best for things which are more simple than a traditional program would do.

    To do more complicated stuff, where you want reuse and modularity, something like Python+(DOM|Sax) or Perl+XPath is a better "XML-way of doing things".

    XPath is actually very powerful when combined with a decent programming language. For example, to pull out all <code>d text below a certain node of a document, into an array of strings, a single perl statement will do:

    $codelines = $xp->find('./code/text()', $node);

    Fairly complicated parsing, which would be pretty fiddly to do by hand, becomes as simple as describing the location of a file in a subdirectory. XML Query Language will take over from XPath for tasks which are even more complicated - things like inner joins in SQL, etc.

  • It doesn't take long to stick to standards. For only a little extra work you can make your work viewable by everyone, not just a few. You are losing customers by making it hard for them to view your work.

    Just because someone isn't using IE does not make them a poor idiot who can't afford whatever it is you're selling. They could be some high-up CEO guy viewing your page on a Palm. Or maybe a consultant who won't recommend you to others because your page wouldn't let them in.

  • I don't want to shamelessly advertise here, but it *is* relevent. I am the maintainer of a WYSIWYG web development system for KDE2 called Kafka. [] Keep your eyes on it's future development. ;-)

    Kafka will offer many of the features that Dreamweaver /Frontpage offer but build with it's own unique functionality.

  • by keesh ( 202812 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @06:04AM (#629287) Homepage
    There have been quite a few posts asking about standards and whether they're worth it. A lot of the issues are summed up here:

    Basically, by not sticking to standards you are discriminating and losing money. It might cost you five minutes more to write a page but you could gain more customers or even save a long court battle.

    Think of everyone, not just the majority.

  • Amaya only renders pages properly when they're created to spec. Pages created to spec consist of about half a percent? of all the pages on the web.

    Actually, it would be a an interesting stat that Google might be able to pump out... Run HTML verifying the utility against every page in their cache :)
  • Reminds me, the boss said we need more eunuch programmers! :)


  • by iamsure ( 66666 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @06:09AM (#629290) Homepage
    Sorry, but I am going to categorically disagree.

    Sometimes its nice having an accelerator. Frontpage does that for me. I do webdesign during my professional job, AND for my at-home business, and for both, I use frontpage.

    It allows me to create a website MUCH faster than I could in notepad, and allows me to quickly flesh out the ideas I have. Once that is done, I go through and HTML validate, and clean it up.

    Swiss army knives are great to cut through the thick plastic before you can GET to the nut, that needs to be turned by the monkey wrench.

    Dont get me wrong, hand-coding is definitely a 'better' way to do things, but I bill by the hour, and dont have time to screw around. It works, and its fast, and its code isnt really all that bad. In fact, compared to dreamweaver, its almost sexy code.

    Remember, there are appropriate tools for EACH situation. Dont grab a hammer and think that everything is a nail.

  • It's crap. It's unusable.

    Forms just don't work.
    I couldn't post this using Amaya because.
    1) I couldn't see what I was typing - if I press return it jumps somewhere and refuses to let me enter the text box again. And if I don't press return the text flows out of the text box and off to the side of the window into oblivion.
    2) The submit button took me to preview and after that nothing else worked
    3) the passwosrd field didn't work, slashdot thought I was still anonymous coward.
    4) It also doesn't support the X clipboard properly - after writing this rant once and it 'losing it', I did it again, but this time I cut a copy in case it did it again, which it did. However, Paste didn't work.
    5) GIFs kept causing it to print error messages to t the terminal I launched it from.

    As soon as I've sent this I shall pop back to the shell window and type rm -rf...

  • That should of course be

    Error (187/4): The character '&' must be written as '&amp;'

    which is not exactly /.'s fault. The others, of course, are.

    Whoever started the "play games with the parser so that as many HTML errors as possible get interpreted correctly" race ought to be fired. Anybody got a time machine?? Anyway, almost no web pages at all have correct HTML. We should mount a "complain about bad HTML" campaign. I'll start writing a few appropriate letters to :-/

  • The trailing slash is not optional.

    It is, in the sense that both "" and "" are valid URLs. However, the latter points at a different thing than the former.

    Also, URL portions do not necessarily refer to directories and files, that just happens to be how most webservers work. It's quite possible to have a webserver return two different pages for "" and "".

  • Saying that XML standards are "better" for storing and manipulating data than SQL is kinda silly. The two solve completely different problems.

    Well, yes. I wouldn't want to use XML-based tools to handle large volumes of data because all current implementations are very slow in comparison to SQL.

    However, XML need not be stored in text files on a hard disk. There is talk of having DBMSs which have an XML front end instead of an SQL front end (but still store data in whatever insanely optimised format internally).

    XML is cool, just a little overhyped sometimes.

    Here, here. I hate it when people try to use the wrong tool for the job, just because it's fashionable.

  • You actually need to type in http:// in the "Open" field at the top of the screen.

    Hey, then check out my website []! Hmm...

  • reminds me of an episode of "Big Thinkers" or "Silicon Spin" I saw this summer (Devorak was on it) he called it the 'scroll bar of death', of course, I don't listen to Devorak except for silly comments like that :-]
  • I loved arachnophilia! (Before I became a free software zealot.)

    One problem with it, though (beside from it being closed source [AFAIK] and for Windows which is evil) is that it does html 3.2 code and no css.

    It's so very scriptable though, that that's not a problem. I hacked it slightly to produce html 4.0 code (this was way back, before xhtml) and it's a very nice program.

  • Slashdot definately has broken HTML code [], but I'm pretty sure that's not the whole story.

    Amaya is surely buggy as hell. It's image rendering seems to cause random lines nearby images, align images slightly wrong and css support is far from correct. For example see [] with Amaya and Mozilla or IE5.5 (which renders some of it incorrectly though). I wonder if the page is really supposed to look like it. Also it seems to fail even the first test of CSS Test Suite []. Thanks but I think I will continue to check my web pages with [], Mozilla [] and IE5.5.

  • surely he means "eunuchs"?

    "But Doctor, if they take away my head surely I'll die?"
  • The W3C is fairly irrelevant. XML came from a group outside W3C. It was first proposed at the SGML conference as a reaction to the losing battle between SGML and the awfully designed HTML.

    The W3C is corporate driven. You have to pay a hefty membership sum to be able to contribute. This is anathema to the way the Internet grew, where people became net.goods by contributing code.

    It also suffers from the standards-body slow-as-molasses syndrome. I have participated in several working groups and they sem to work under a mandate to make as few changes as possible.

    An effort such as HTML++ got delayed time and time again.

    To reiterate, XML is here only because it originated outside the W3C umbrella.

  • The cornerstone of text in HTML and XML is Unicode.
    It isn't.

    Of course it is. All you have to do is read the specifications. Unicode is the Document Character Set of HTML. It's all there in the HTML specificaton. In XML Unicode is not only the Document Character Set but also the default encoding(s). And it doesn't matter for my point if this is good or bad. The deciscion to base HTML and XML on Unicode was made by W3C, and W3C also made Amaya. So something is not done in the right order here. Get text support right first. Then move on to less important things, like style sheets, MathML etc.

  • Should have previewed...


    turns into
    due to filename completion. A user-interface aid.
    "prefix http:// completion" is a perfectly valid user interface aid.

    Don't confuse the 2 interfaces.
  • Of course it is adhering to W3C's standard.
    If it is not then who? It is a product from
    W3C isn't it?

    Yes, I do agree it is a lot less hyped up
    but there is a reason for that.
    It is not for the regular public.
    It is mainly for developers.

  • Ever heard of alpha releases and beta releases?
    That's how you ship shoddy goods, by telling people that they're shoddy in advance. They know what they're getting.
    If it was alpha I've have interpreted it as "we know it doesn't work fully, help us fix it by finding and hopefully isolating bugs"
    If it was beta I'd have interpreted it as "we think it works, go break it, I dare you".
    It was marked as neither alpha nor beta; it truth it appeared to be pre-alpha, which could be why.

    It's not "hoarding the code". It's simply not releasing garbage that could well _confuse_ anyone that looks at it. If you can't code it, don't - let someone else who can do it. That's Open Source collaboration.

  • I don't expect anyone will see this, but here goes. Most Unix TCP/IP stacks are perfectly happy to let you specify addresses in decimal or hexadecimal. For example, on my Sun all the following are equivalent:

    I'm sure I could leave off the http:// to, and just jump around to random numbers.
  • >CSS doesnt provide an easy way to accomplish
    >the task of having a size-locked table

    You shouldn't have to make your layout tables a fixed width. You site should fill the screen of a browser at any resolution, it shouldn't waste 75% of the screen at high resolutions. Why should I have to load two pages to read all your colocation [psychasia] information when it would all easily fit on one screen? Likewise, all the items in your news section would fit on one page. People on slow connections would much rather use a scrollbar occationally than have to load a new page every three paragraphs.
  • by fhwang ( 90412 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @05:30AM (#629307) Homepage
    I know that MacOS is a bitch to write applications for, but still it's a shame there's no MacOS port. There are many web development/design shops that use Macs at a number of points in their development process. Of course, any self-respecting web company would have both Macs and PCs around for testing, but you tend to use a tool much less frequently if you have to switch to another computer to do it.
  • sorry. the broken link should point here []
  • > No, I didnt miss the point.(sic)

    Yes you did. "Good" HTML isn't supposed to have any formatting at all. Yours is full of it. Yes, I am well aware of CSS' limitations, but you should be aware that any standards organization or accessibility organization would decry this as "good" code. I'll leave the "features vs. accessibility" argument to someone else.

    I agree with Wonko; I don't like all these "640x480 in a box" sites, either. I run my screen at 1920x1440, and your site is just ugly. I can barely read the text, and the "box" the site is in is smaller than my GAIM windows.

    Finally, validation is important. All my personal HTML validates as XHTML 1.0 Strict, but that's hardly realistic. Rather, getting pages "90%" compliant is usually good enough, and even the Any Browser Campaign [] admits this.

    If you're interested in accessibility, check out the Any Browser Accessible Site Design [] page. You might be surprised at all the "inaccessible" elements your site uses. I know you said you didn't care about anyone but "average" people, but terming "average" as people using 640x480 and using a modern browser cuts out too many people. I noticed you linked to Bobby. Maybe you should read it sometime.

    I have seen many sites that look like this, and I rarely get anything good off of them. Maybe it's the design and maybe it's the content, but when I see a site like this, I generally pull out in 30 seconds. If you want to see real web design, take a look at the big sites who depend on web traffic to make a living, like Yahoo! [], eBay [], or even Slashdot []. You'll notice all of these sites will render cleanly and correctly in about any browser you throw at it. That's because none of those sites is big on specifying formatting.
  • I downloaded it and installed it on Win2K after reading this. It does a terrible job of display: compare and in it to IE5, and you'll see. It doesn't seem to use the CSS. Also, there is no feedback about errors to the user: you can't tell whether you are in edit mode or not. Type in an URL without http:// and press enter, and nothing happens...eventually you notice a tiny message in the bottom left hand corner, you guess that you have to add http:// to make it work.

    With poor CSS support and poor feedback, this browser is unlikely to succeed, even as an evaluation tool of new technologies.
  • That's the kind of attitude that's destroying the web. What was really good about the web was that it was totally independent of platform and application. That's what made it take off. There are lots of fantastic things that has remained unrealized because of people like you who let your employers dictate how you write web apps. I'd say, if they dictate how to write web apps, quit! It's as simple as that.
  • You're a student, aren't you...?

  • by iamsure ( 66666 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @06:16AM (#629313) Homepage
    Well, I used it for 1 minute, so I figure I am informed enough to comment on slashdot now. :)

    First, its scrolling is crap. Load up and scroll up and down a few times, and fear in utmost horror.

    Next, load up our favorite site, slashdot.. sigh.

    My business website, painstakingly html-validated (ON THEIR VALIDATOR!!) doesnt even render right. ( -- drill down thru webhosting or colocation).

    You HAVE to enter http://, it doesnt support frames AT ALL (thats not a standard!?!?), and most importantly of all, it renders SLOWLY.

    What in the hell?!?!

  • seki-strombrg> /home/Amaya/LINUX-ELF/bin/amaya
    *** Thot: Irrecoverable error ***
    seki-strombrg> strace -f /home/Amaya/LINUX-ELF/bin/amaya 2>&1 | tail
    fstat(4, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=67, ...}) = 0
    old_mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x4001d000
    read(4, "$&\'*-./0123456789abcdefghijklmno"..., 4096) = 67
    --- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) ---
    rt_sigaction(SIGBUS, {SIG_DFL}, {0x810847c, [], SA_RESTART|0x4000000}, 8) = 0
    rt_sigaction(SIGPIPE, {SIG_IGN}, {SIG_DFL}, 8) = 0
    rt_sigaction(SIGSEGV, {SIG_DFL}, {0x810847c, [], SA_RESTART|0x4000000}, 8) = 0
    rt_sigaction(SIGABRT, {SIG_DFL}, {0x810847c, [], SA_RESTART|0x4000000}, 8) = 0
    write(2, "*** Thot: Irrecoverable error **"..., 33*** Thot: Irrecoverable error ***) = 33
    _exit(1) = ?

    seki-strombrg> cat /etc/redhat-release
    Red Hat Linux release 6.2 (Zoot)

    seki-strombrg> uname -m

  • I'm sort of a web developer (not a web designer, BTW), but all my code is standards compliant.
    Market does all sort of bad things today. Why should I?

    About ease of use, I don't agree that most developers do care about it. And I don't care about who has the market share, so my products are *NOT* browser specific. For example, my home page is browseable with any web browser, and now I'm starting to do a WAP friendly version of my site (using perl to translate the content, of course)

    If you think that W3C is irrelevant, please figure out where we could be if W3C never existed.
    Luis González
  • IMHO...DHTML is perhaps the source of the majority of usability problems, compatibilty problems, and accessibility problems on the net. Javascript doubly so. Unfortunately it seems that the average Web "Designer" (instead of web "author") isn't mature enough to use a full programming language on the web. I much prefer XHTML + CSS least then I can override usability problems with my own stylesheet. Now if only I can figure out a way to unrender tables...
  • Maybe he is, but I am a programmer, and I completely agree with him. If you can't make a living by producing standards-compliant HTML, your aren't qualified for your work, and garbage that you produce doesn't deserve whatever your clients pay you -- in other words, you are a scammer, and everyone has all reasons to criticize you. Get the **ck out of this "business" and learn to make a living by honest means.
  • Yeah. You also need to add the http:// manually if you type in a page on a nonstandard port.
  • OK, now FYI Borland is not the name of a programming tool, but of a company. Maybe you should ask your little brother about that before you post ;)
  • Amaya is there to educate web designers and web-browser designers, so it has to be picky. That probably means that it's not a good web browser to use for browsing today's largely non-conforming www.

    I agree. Furthermore, Amaya is pretty useful for viewing extremely compliant web pages that use parts of the w3c standard that neither Netscape nor IE support. Try viewing Amaya's default page in Netscape or IE...

    Granted, there aren't many pages out there like that, but it's nice to know there's a browser that can save you in those cases.

  • You could argue that "everybody knows that means". That's true. Except that some programmer will assume that therefore "" is a valid URL, and he will break interoperability between his program and another program which is expecting a real URL. If Amaya's job is to be strictly correct, then it must do this for URLs too.

    Respectfully, this is bullshit. I expect end-users to react with some degree of confusion to the distinction between a hostname and a URL. I do not expect it of programmers, and if a programmer can't get over something that most people learn in "HTML for Complete Imbeciles," (s)he should power down and back away from the computer slowly.

  • I'm suprised it's not written in Java. If all you want is a reference implementation, Java seems to be the way to go. These days, with modern JIT technology, it might even be somewhat acceptable from a performance perspective.
  • I have read the specifications. Unicode requirement is a "rider", something added to the standard to serve purpose completely unrelated to the standard's purpose. I hope, it will go away just like requirement for ASCII-only text went away when software that implemented RFC-822, SMTP, NNTP and FTP refused to put that restriction into most of implementations after it was found that it causes nothing but harm.

    I agree that it's nice to have Unicode supported, but only as one of charsets -- by default everything that can be charset-blind and data-transparent should be done that way, so if implementation of multiple charsets is necessary for user interface or some other purpose, it should be easy to add on top of that. XML, of course, is not designed that way, as it standardizes the use of multiple languages per document but defines only one charset per document -- a feature that, I believe, was added to serve partisan interest of promoting the use of Unicode over all other charsets. In fact, XML can be easily extended to support multiple charsets per document, and implementation of charset attribute would be a no-brainer if not the "political" decision of W3C to support Unicode consortium and not provide a better umbrella for national standards (ISO 2022 is the last, and very poor example of providing an umbrella -- among other problems it's not extensible), and actually XML and HTML are currently the best starting points for thing like that. Too bad, right now there is no alternative to do that but by forking standards, as W3C and IETF, led by "unicoders", are unwilling to do it within their framework.

  • Try double clicking... that works better ;)
  • 4 years, gosh you really are god
  • Dude.. try some pages with basic tables, throw in some width directives on the tables and Amaya has a fit. This thing is not showing standards compliance at all.. it's completey useless.
    I would personaly really love a reference implementation - something that could help me ensure standards compliance. This isnt it yet.
  • The cornerstone of text in HTML and XML is Unicode.

    It isn't. People who use non-iso8859-1 characters always demanded equality of charsets and usable ways of encapsulation of the charset information (MIME has it in the headers, but no standard for document body was developed, even though it's easy if someone actually tried to establish it as a standard). Unicode is one of "standards" that everyone who is supposed to benefit from, is fighting against, yet committee of "unicoders" don't listen. A lot of Internet standards were infested with "mandatory use of Unicode" only because of the efforts of a single, but extremely persistent and annoying person -- Martin Duerst.

  • It's scary that you college types can't even spell

    html to speach browser
    and it's brocken
    for imbedding math

    I usually happily float on by typos (want thier equations) and such but your spelling drove me crazy.

    Confucius observed, "If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless
    confusion. hence, there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything."

  • Why? because you say so?

    All content should fit on one page? All of what? one category? one topic?

    Slashdot doesnt, yahoo doesnt, hell, no one I know of does.

    It is the design *I* chose. Many others choose different designs. Thats mine.

    You are nitpicking about design choices, and REALLY offtopic. The point was that frontpage is a decent editor, that Amaya didnt render correctly formatted pages, and that is all.

    I chose to make it that way. It is valid HTML, it lays out information in a logical fashion, and is stylish..

    ALL in my opinion.

    As to the slow connection, ALL the graphics are already loaded each new page. All they need to get is the new text.

    You dont like it, fuck off. :)
  • that more content should fit on one screen. He does have a point: there's only a few lines of actual text on each screen.

    I cannot speak for your graphics-preloading argument because I do not know how well this is supported by browsers, but that notwithstanding, just requesting a new page requires TCP/IP overhead and rerendering. This is certainly an issue with people who have overloaded or "burstable" connections and people still using old Pentiums.

    I know this is really off-topic, but I think it needs to be said. You shouldn't be so rude (i.e. "fuck off") to Wonko, especially since you encouraged him to go to your page and point out errors. You should also pay attention to him because he is a user, not a boss. Making flashy websites to impress bosses is one thing, but making successful sites that draw people in is another thing. He gave you some opinionated, though valid, suggestions. If you're truly a good designer, you won't dismiss criticism/suggestions with "fuck off".
  • I agree with you on some of what you said.

    I agree that he meant that more content should fit on one screen. But, in response, I go back to it being rather offtopic. It doesnt have ANYTHING to do with Amaya, nor with rendering. The pages layout is a design choice.

    I will agree with you that there is a tcp/ip overhead, and that it re-renders. However, in response, I will say that the pages are very tighly designed, and load relatively quickly considering how much graphics are on them.

    And of course, I will disagree with your closing statement.

    I take great offense at someone going THIS offtopic when he could have simply emailed me, and handled it there. He criticized my design CHOICE. Not the validity, not why it rendered poorly on Amaya (because Amaya SUCKS), but because he had a different opinion.

    As to the 'user/boss' thing.. what you fail to grasp is that I run/own/code It is me. We are one and the same.

    So, I make successful sites that bring in users. I know because they buy my suits, and my car radios (aiwa cdc-mp3 ROCKS).

    I agree that he is opinonated, and I will even agree that some of what he said had validitiy.

    One of the things I didnt like about the site was the lack of text display. However, I prefered a stand out site. It was a conscience choice.

    And finally, I am a good designer, I am not afraid to say so, and I make a damn good living at it. My attitude matches my persona, and my style of business. VERY honest, VERY upfront.

    What you see is what you get. If you dont like it...

    Well, you get the idea. :)

    (On a side note, I was being sarcastic when I did the fuck off, hence the smiley. If I MEANT it, it would have been bold, red, and lots of exclamations after it.. NOT that I react like that to a post on /. )
  • Some notes after testing on Win98:

    1. I can't log into Slashdot using Amaya. What good is a browser if I can't turn karma tricks with it?
    2. The interface looks like something my kid brother would have put together using a five year old copy of MS Visual Studio. Or Borland.
    3. You actually need to type in http:// in the "Open" field at the top of the screen. Every other browser maker got over this fixation in '95. Why can't the W3C?
  • I'm being trolled. If you'd care to read a few thousand pages in the W3C TR section [], you'll see that they are at least 10 years ahead of anybody. Tell me, have anything at all happened in the last 5 years? I would claim no! There has not been a single significant advance in 5 years! And it is not W3C who have been destroying the markets, it's the astonishing short-sightedness of the browser warriors, who created two identical badly sucking browsers, who are actually trying to claim that one browser is better than the other. It's really astonishing to see how little useful features they have managed to implement in five years...

    Your way of creating standards kills brilliance. There are a few people out there who are really brilliant, but nobody is capable of seeing it, so they're not scratching itches. Then, you've got a few idiots coming along trying to convince everybody that they actually have a good product, and since nobody understands brilliance even when it's before their eyes, well, the result is apparent, two identical sucky browsers.

  • It's much better on rendering valid pages. You should get those designers to check their code and see what happens then.
  • I agree. I spend more time correcting the code that FrontPage produces than I would writing everything from scratch. And, if you stick to HTML4 Strict and use stylesheets for layout, it really is very simple.

    But, it is also worth noting that Tim Berners-Lee never thought anybody would write code by hand...

  • Right, and I'm not even a computer science student, and I'm proud of it.
  • well one suggestion I would make is that your pages would be difficult for people with imperfect vision such as the over 50s.

    As you get older your eyes get less sensitive ('cos nature is trying it's best to kill you). Which means black text on a grey background becomes harder and harder to read the older you get.

    You young pups thing you know it all (nature's way of keeping you alive :). /. does a crap thing in this dept. too by doing that shitty grey text thing.

    You might say that old people don't use the web - but that's simply not true and you'll be old some day and I don't think you'll stop using it.

    Walk a mile in other people's shoes sometime.
  • IE has done this for some time but for non-responding url's

    try and watch the status bar


    it then does a search

    go to the tool menu, internet options, advanced tab, search section

    i have search turned off cos it's almost useless


  • I've tried writing a page with Amaya, but I don't like it. Especially tables are a nuisance.

    The only way of getting any decent work done, was by showing a separate code screen (Reminds me of the old days of WP 5).

    For editing HTML, I'll take Emacs with psgml mode over Amaya any day, but then I don't like WYSIAYG (What You See Is ALL you Get) editors anyway.

    The other comments here tell me I won't be using it for browsing either. :-)


  • >Yes you did. "Good" HTML isn't supposed to have any formatting at all
    Again, an opinion crouched as fact. In my opinion, it is a good design. There is no proper way (css, etc.) to do a locked table, which is what I wanted, so I did it with html.

    >Yes, I am well aware of CSS' limitations, but you should be aware that any standards organization or accessibility organization would decry this as "good" code
    I made the site do what I wanted it to do, and did it using html valid code. Period.

    >f you're interested in accessibility, check out the Any Browser Accessible Site Design page. You might be surprised at all the "inaccessible" elements your site uses.
    If you were blind, you could read my site PERFECTLY. It renders perfectly for sight-disabled people. An easy way to verify that is to load it with lynx. Its clear, clean, and well laid out.

    >I noticed you linked to Bobby. Maybe you should read it sometime.
    Yes, I have. Try checking my site there. It gets a passing score. There are a few warnings, but as it says (maybe YOU should read it sometime) warnings should be interpreted. I have a blind colleague at work, and she tests my site for me. It works perfectly for her!

    >I have seen many sites that look like this, and I rarely get anything good off of them
    See, I love people that say this. Here are the facts, not opinions.. The FACTS are:

    1. I wanted the design to look like this. I am happy it does. One or two people's opinions on slashdot DEFINITELY wont change that.

    2. It is HTML valid code. TOTALLY. By just about anyone's validator, primarily Bobby, and W3C's!

    3. It is accessible by almost any browser out there, UNLIKE slashdot, and eBay. Try loading THOSE in amaya. HA!

    4. I get PLENTY of customers DUE to this page. You dont see my inbox. I have gotten three multiple-thousand dollar design contracts BECAUSE of that page.

    So, I stand behind my page. Yes, I broke the unwritten 'gee, thats bad' rules of using html to do formatting (its *IN* the spec, so I will USE IT until CSS has a way!), of using html to lock the font size, and of locking it to a single resolution.

    All of that was done so that no matter WHO looks at it, it looks *THE SAME* and is graphically pleasing. If I chose to open it up to people running at 2million x 1million, it wouldnt be NEARLY as pleasant to 640x480 users.

    On another site of mine I monitored browser sizes, and the OVERWHELMING majority was 800x600 (like over 60%), and very few above 1024.

    As such, I design for the greatest number of users. I stand behind my decisions, and my customers seem to be quite happy about it.

  • by divec ( 48748 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @12:30PM (#629345) Homepage
    I do not expect [confusion to the distinction between a hostname and a URL] of programmers

    I don't think it's as obvious as you say. "" , "", "", "", "", "" . I don't think it's obvious which of those are conforming URLs, unless you've read the RFC (in fact, the :80 is optional and meaningless (i.e. default behaviour), and the trailing slash is optional but meaningful).

    if a programmer can't get over something that most people learn in "HTML for Complete Imbeciles," (s)he should power down and back away from the computer slowly.

    In the real world there are many people who've learned about HTML and the WWW by observing how it works only. If you learn that way, there's no way to distinguish between "what is correct" and "what the software allows you to do". For example, Windows allows you to write IP addresses with trailing zeroes, for example '' instead of ''. On the other hand, if you try to do this with some versions of ifconfig(1), then they will interpret part of the numbers in *octal*, and assume that you mean ''. I've no idea which is the correct behaviour, or if both are, because I've only learned how to do this by using the software. If I wrote software which imitated one of those behaviours, then it could well be wrong.

  • Right the problem is that too many people, and you might be one of them, are "Web Designers" who most of the time don't understand the intricacies of markup languages because they prefer to use "DHTML-enabled" WYSIWIG editors like DreamWeaver to build their sites, and are just happy with their content looking snazzy, and as long as it looks snazzy in the browser that has the biggest market share then everything's cool. Well THAT, my friend, is what will kill the world wide web.

    Don't get me wrong. I absolutely LOVE IE5, I have developed a number of client-side-based web applications all leveraging its kick-butt support for XML, XSL, javascript, CSS, DOM and overall DHTML. But I kept in mind that most of IE5's implementations of those standards at the time were indeed mostly specific to Microsoft as most of those standards were still in the process of being clearly defined by the W3C.

    But most of those applications were for company-wide Intranet tools or a subset of our "beta" users, in short, a smaller well-defined group of people we KNEW would use IE5. We'd never release a product relying solely on non-standards based technologies to millions of users just because "they should all be using IE5 anyway".

    Standards are bound to evolve to more and more reflect all the web-enabled devices that are coming to the market, don't fight them, embrace them. Or watch the world pass you by.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12, 2000 @06:33AM (#629351)
  • As of Mozilla M18, actually, it didn't support XHTML correctly. My website was done entirely in XHTML and CSS, but really bone-simple things like image and blockquote elements weren't displaying. (Not "weren't displaying correctly," they just disappeared.) It's my understanding that Mozilla/NS6 uses a separate XML parser for XHTML files, and the XML parser isn't quite there yet. I'd like to think that's been fixed for the final Netscape 6, but I'm not optimistic--the bug fixes related to this didn't appear to be marked with a real high priority.

  • Well, I'm coding mostly by hand myself, but since my mother wanted to start writing web pages, and since Amaya is the only tool that produce valid code, I thought I'd give it a try.

    It works allright, she uses it successfully for most purposes, but that's because she writes relatively simple pages. But then, if everybody wrote simpler pages, the web would be a better place, wouldn't it? :-)

  • I've been trying Amaya once in a while for a long time. For all the hype about Mozilla, konqueror and many others, it's interesting that the W3C's effort should get so little attention.


    The most important thing for any web browser is the capability to display text. The cornerstone of text in HTML and XML is Unicode. The main browsers have had Unicode support for years. The upcoming Mozilla has brilliant Unicode support.

    So what about Amaya - the browser alternative from W3C, the organization that made Unicode the basis of HTML and XML? No support for Unicode!

    Now, when was Unicode invented exactly? --- Oh, was it that many years ago? Oh my....

  • by hatless ( 8275 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @07:26AM (#629356)
    There's no "conspiracy" against Amaya. Amaya's always been an unusable testbed. Jigsaw is a tool for experimenting with server architecture and modularity and isn't meant for actual production use. Amaya is a tool for testing proposed new versions of CSS, HTML and especially nowadays the HTTP protocol. Nobody involved with the project expects anyone to really use it as a browser or an editing tool.

    (Timothy, what do you know anything about?)
  • by divec ( 48748 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @07:32AM (#629360) Homepage
    My business website, painstakingly html-validated (ON THEIR VALIDATOR!!) doesnt even render right.[...] it doesnt support frames AT ALL

    Your site uses HTML 4.0 Transitional (<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"...). If you want to use Frames, you should use HTML 4.0 Frameset. Or did you mean frames on other sites?
    You HAVE to enter http://

    The "scheme://" part of a URL is compulsory. See RFC 1738 []. Maybe it's good for a normal browser to allow you to omit "http://", but if the W3C's reference browser did this it could lead people to think that "" is a valid URL.

    What in the hell?!?!

    Amaya is there to educate web designers and web-browser designers, so it has to be picky. That probably means that it's not a good web browser to use for browsing today's largely non-conforming www.

  • Because, ummm, welll, okay yeah.

    Sorry.. its a karma-whorific day today, and I lost track. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

    As to my professionalism, I do strive for betterness, but I also have my own preferences as well, as does anyone. I disagree with the opinion that all sites should display as much text as possible on a screen. I would love to see more graphically designed sites out there. But again, thats just me.

    And of course, to your advice about fuck, hey, its a personal choice. I am brash, and sometimes, yeah, rude. I dont pretend to be perfect. But I am honest, and I do use whatever words express what I feel best. To me, in that situation, that did. I stand behind my choice.

    Although next time I might add a tag, or maybe not.

  • As already reported, it does not render sites too cleanly, such as slashdot. OK. Current HTML practices are attrocious. We know that. But what I have a problem with is the applications UI. It runs from little things like no busy indicator when it's loading an external page (indicator on the frame, or even a busy icon) to the orginization and rendering of controls. For a 4.0 release, this application puts forth a very poor quality image. Mozilla and Konqueror, just to name two, have never looked or worked this bad. I think it's time I pulled the source down and poked around a bit...

    Oh. A word of warning. Trying to get the Windows binary from the HTTP site results in truncating the download to 4.096MB. Use the ftp site. And no, don't blame IE.

  • by GeorgeH ( 5469 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @07:44AM (#629377) Homepage Journal
    A lot of people are complaining that Amaya isn't as nice or as comfortable as Mozilla or IE. These people are missing the point of Amaya.

    Amaya isn't supposed to replace your current web browser, it's a reference implimentation. Its goal is to show how a web browser should render a page. The idea is that if Amaya renders your web page correctly, then your HTML is Correct(tm).

    If you don't understand why web standards are important, check out the Web Standards Project [].

  • by divec ( 48748 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @07:51AM (#629378) Homepage
    You actually need to type in http:// in the "Open" field at the top of the screen. Every other browser maker got over this fixation in '95. Why can't the W3C?

    Cos the job of Amaya is not to save 0.7 seconds of typing. It is to allow more people to use open, interoperable standards instead of proprietory HTML tags. If you emit the http:// from a URL, then it is no longer a valid URL [].

    You could argue that "everybody knows that means". That's true. Except that some programmer will assume that therefore "" is a valid URL, and he will break interoperability between his program and another program which is expecting a real URL. If Amaya's job is to be strictly correct, then it must do this for URLs too.

  • Frames on other sites, mine doesnt use frames, silly. My personal site does tho.. ( which it doesnt render at all, even with the correct DOCTYPE.

    I see your point about the http, but I would think it would be a decent thing to add as an option..

    >Amaya is there to educate web designers and web-browser designers, so it has to be picky.
    >That probably means that it's not a good web browser to use for browsing today's largely non-conforming www

    My whole point was that I *am* a webdesigner, my sites *are* conforming, and it still doesnt work. Thats not a conformance issue, thats buggy. :)

  • No, you can set FP not to do that.

    Try comparing mouse-over code from the two.

    MS = roughly 4-5 lines,
    Dreamweaver= *30*!?!?!

    All obfuscated too.

    Dreamweaver's output isnt cleanly delineated, isnt indented well (try a few embedded tables for comparison)..

    Frontpage isnt the end all be all, but it beats DW there.

    Now, when I need a good selection of drag and drop javascript, DreamWeaver looks ALOT sexier tho..

  • Finally someone that gets my theory on work. By doing more work, faster, I can get clients to say stuff like "He did my whole site in one hour on a SUNDAY!!?!?"

    Thats mad advertising, baby.

  • I think that it is a noble effort that Amaya is built to handle mathematics on the web. And when this issue gets resolved, it will be probably be its saving grace, until then here is a little story about me and Amaya.

    I installed and ran their previous version of Amaya a few months ago. I had hoped that it would be a cure for what ails netscape, but it wasn't. Several features did not function properly if it all. I tried to cruise around the web and edit some mathematical formulas for a couple of hours, got fed up, and got rid of the sucker.

    If somebody has tried out the latest version, please let me know what you thought of it.
  • That's just the attitude that bought about a majority of the incompatabilities on the web in the first place.

    IMHO, the W3C standards should _ALWAYS_ be used on a project unless there is a very good reason not to. The fact that the W3C have defined standards saves each project defining their own.

  • Yes, but "em" is not the valid name for a program on my system here, yet when I type
    emacs starts.

    It's a simple matter of working out what is most sensible to do with something that doesn't fit your schema. If you're Amaya you throw it away (hey, it should refuse to display pages with grammatical and spelling errors too, surely). If you're Netscape then you work out what was most probably wanted. It's called usability.

    Anyway there is noting in the standards about how a user should input a URL, is there.
    you could have radio-buttons for the protocol part, drop-down menus for specifying .net, .com or .org, and then a textbox for the rest. The standard specifies the computer-computer interface, not the HMI.

  • Not entirely. Someone still has to publish specifications. OK, maybe everyone else extends them, but there has to be something there in the first place. If there was no 'core' specification then there could be no extensions to it. Everything would split and the web would no longer be World Wide.

    Besides, your employer should consider the legal implications of making sites proprietry. In the UK there's the Disability Discrimination Act, the US has something similar. By making sites use proprietry extensions you are limiting access to those who cannot use mainstream browsers for whatever reason. You seem to be forgetting that not everyone can use IE, even if they want to. Some people may wish to have pages read to them, or have them magnified (Opera, for example, can do the latter).

    Just because Microsoft have the market share does not mean they own the internet. If you've read the halloween documents you'll know about protocol de-comoditisation -- that would force everyone to use their products. The consumer should have a right to choose.

  • I'm one of many developers who are creating an enterprise level application for our company. We are using IE5.01, and every team member consults the W3C [] pages to reference their specifications on: XML, HTML, CSS, XLINK, SVG, etc...

    If W3C was really that in-effective we wouldn't be using them. From talking to friends (at other jobs) we're not the only ones.
  • Actually, it would be a an interesting stat that Google might be ableto pump out... Run HTML verifying the utility against every page in their cache :)

    You could try telnetting to port 80 on randomly selected IP addresses, and then validating the page sent as a response (if there is a response, and it's not an error message). That would be enlightening.
  • People pay competitively. Above all else, let me tell you, QUALITY isnt something that sells in websites (not html anyways. Graphics, yeah).

    I actually make money doing this, and I dont need to beleive you. I KNOW. I do it every week. People want results, and style. Whether it renders on lynx, or has alt tags, or is html compliant doesnt matter much to the average person.

    BUT, -- BUT -- , I dont write crap code. Check out Its tight. Its sexy. It looks good in lynx. It has alt tags, it has hidden comments. It renders properly in NS, IE, And even decently on that bastard WebTV. It has the pixel size locked so it looks the same on mac as it does on windows..

    It has preloading, mouseovers, AND it is html compliant.

    I dont do crap code. And I do it IN frontpage.

    If I did it all by hand, I would be billing EASILY for three times as much. Thats nuts.

    Plus, I wouldnt have clients swearing by me that say "He did my whole site in one hour ON A SUNDAY NIGHT!".

    Thats how I got the job I am in, because a client I did work for saw an opening for a webdesigner at work, and when suggesting me said "This guy is fast AND good."

    And I dont spend alot of time fixing crappy code. Far from it. I know what crap FP adds, and I know what to rip out, quickly. It takes less time to fix the code after the page is done than it does to make the page! Both of which are MUCH less time than it would take to manually edit them.

    MY big thing now is that I am moving to a MS free desktop, and would LOVE a wysiwyg editor for linux.. But I havent seen any really nice ones that arent commercial..

    Maybe mozilla's will be EVENTUALLY. :)
  • Netscape [] 6 []and [] XHTML? [] I [] think []. not [].

    This really pisses me off... XHTML is a new standard, and Mozilla could start it off on the right foot perfectly. But they're fucking it up more than Netscape 1.0 did to HTML.

  • That's probably the most important thing about it. You look at most web sites these days, the HTML is absolutely horrible. Even I do horrible stuff in HTML, although I try my best not to.
    If all browsers were such sticklers, we'd have a much faster-seeming internet, as all webmasters would have to make sure what they did was proper.
    If only society worked the same way.
  • by divec ( 48748 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @05:48AM (#629407) Homepage
    The market has made the W3C irrelevant. Users and developers fo theWeb don't care what the W3C has to say, it's all about market share and ease of use.

    That is untrue because everyone wants to get onto the XML bandwagon. XML, and all the accompanying technologies (such as XML Schema [] and XML Linking []) provide a standard, open way of storing and manipulating data which is far more powerful than, say, SQL. IE-only web pages may work today, but most organisations who want to do any serious content management are at least considering XML-based systems for the future, and so XHTML []-compliant web pages will be a no-brainer once browsers start to support XHTML fairly well (which is basically true of IE 5.5 and Netscape 6).

    Not long ago I would have agreed with your view that the W3C was becoming irrelevant. However, the stunt they have pulled with XML is extremely nice - pulling people towards a powerful open standard because it is powerful, open and standard :-)

  • I can't believe I missed out XSL Transformations [] and XML Query []!
  • by kervin ( 64171 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @08:59AM (#629414) Homepage

    it's interesting that the W3C's effort should get so little attention.

    I agree with you Timothy. But why isn't slashdot doing it's part and using *correct* HTML. Or at least have a "proper HTML only" version to show standards support.

    A little Hypocritical, don't you think?

  • Sorry, I just checked, your site isn't conforming. I get about half a dozen errors, one of which looks like it prevents the parser from even reading the main body of your code.

    Fix, recheck, and if still broken I hereby grant you the right to bitch. ;-)

  • Ever heard of XSL? This utterly contrived and absolutely worthless style technology is proof positive that the W3 should stay out of the technology development business.

    After DSSSL was shite upon the SGML world, you'd think standards bodies would take a long hard look at what people wanted and were actually using before even thinking of developing another convoluted styles standard. This is pure "design by committee", repleat with all the fractured useless designs you'd expect from such an effort.

    And before anyone out there thinks of offering a rebuttal in support for XSL, programming in XML is a silly idea, particularly when the schema used to express programming constructs fails to include even rudimentary reuse and modularity features found in real programming languages thirty years ago.

  • >It has the pixel size locked

    You have clearly missed the point of html. html is _not_ a formatting language, it is a markup language. A properly written html document should not be the same pixel width and height on every user agent. It should be written so as to display correctly for any size screen. As far as looking "tight" and "sexy", it looks like all every other all-graphics, designed for 640x480 webpages I have ever seen. Try looking at that page on a 1600x1200 screen and see how "sexy" you think it looks.

    >AND it is html compliant.

    Yea, about that...

    Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.

    Line 4, column 29:
    <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
    Error: required attribute "TYPE" not specified

    Line 20, column 5:
    Error: document type does not allow element "HTML" here

    Line 89, column 8:
    Error: "HEAD" not finished but document ended

    Line 89, column 8:
    Error: "HTML" not finished but document ended

    Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 4.0 Transitional.

  • by cluening ( 6626 ) on Sunday November 12, 2000 @05:56AM (#629425) Homepage
    It doesn't seem to render Slashdot correctly. I wonder which is at fault, Slashdot or Amaya... Hmmm.... :)

Air is water with holes in it.