On Thursday 17 February 2005 00:08, Miguel wrote: > > Enshrined deep inside jmol.ps > > Jmol.js ?
Jmol, JMol; Jmol.jar, Jmol.js, Jmol.ps ... it's all so confusing :) > > is the <DEFANGED_applet> tag, including the immortal > > attribute Sorry of the DEFANGED stuff... it's a university policy thing :( > > "<DEFANGED_applet mayscript='true' /> > > > > (an attribute which produces formally invalid XHTML, as Tidy keeps > > informing me every time) > > > > In the proposed W3c XHTML 2.0 spec, <DEFANGED_applet> has finally > > disappeared, and only > > <DEFANGED_object> remains, vis > > http://www.w3c.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/ > > > > Quite some time ago, in 2000, I remapped the Jmol <DEFANGED_embed> onto > > <object> (http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/chemime/tests/object/ ) > > and bless its heart, this way of invoking Jmol still works (in some > > browsers!) > > > > So the questions is: Should jmol.ps recast <DEFANGED_applet> into > > <DEFANGED_object>? > > > > Actually, probably not, because of the appallingly bad support for > > <DEFANGED_object> in browsers. > > I concur. > > If you want to change it, how many old browsers are you willing to break. Is there no option to write <object> for some browsers, while <applet> for others? It already does do browser detection... Anyway, since those who deliberately use XHTML 2.0 (go for it!), those could also use a JmolXHTML2.js... > > FireFox/Mozilla, bless their collective hearts, are no > > problem, but > > IE makes a complete pigs ear of the <DEFANGED_object> element (just try > > the above), > > as in fact does Safari on OS X. > > right > > > Still, the observation remains that jmol.ps is formally at least > > producing invalid > > XHTML currently, and using a tag that no longer appears in the W3C > > specifications. > > It doesn't appear in the specifications, but I believe that *every* > browser requires it. Otherwise it is impossible to call from Java into > JavaScript ... a security violation. > > > What does the community feel about this? > > Does the community want code that works with the existing installed base > of browsers, or code that meets proposed standards? I prefer to use proposed standards, especially if they are XML based... because that allows me to do automatic checks for finding errors on the pages... but it depends on my user base. If needed, HTML 3.2 is fine :) Egon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] PhD student on Molecular Representation in Chemometrics Radboud University Nijmegen http://www.cac.science.ru.nl/people/egonw/ GPG: 1024D/D6336BA6 ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
