> I would love to know why version 6.0 stopped supporting layers.
It never "stopped" supporting them. They were never in the plan, and have
been deprecated since Netscape 4 beta something-or-other. They are not
part of any standard.
> I know they
> arent part of any W3C standard but numerous web
> If the final built of NS 6.0
> would't support layers, it would mean a lot of extra time and money to
> rebuilt the existing pages to the standard code so it works. I can imagine
> the industry to drop support for NS 6.0 if it means they have
> to rebuild their existing pages.
No, what will h
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gervase Markham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> layer support as it existed in version 4.7 and maybe even drop the BLINK
>> tag wich is far more useless in my opinion. The BLINK tag is not even part
>> of any standard so its a bit of a contradiction to say that you
> Actually, you'll find this in html.css:
>
> blink {
> text-decoration: blink;
> }
Yep, sorry. My mistake.
Why do we support , by the way? It does seem a bit inconsistent.
Gerv
Greg Breland wrote:
>
> > If the final built of NS 6.0
> > would't support layers, it would mean a lot of extra time and money to
> > rebuilt the existing pages to the standard code so it works. I can imagine
> > the industry to drop support for NS 6.0 if it means they have
> > to rebuild their
madmax wrote:
> Dear Netscape,
This isn't a Netscape group, but Netscape 6 is based on
Mozilla so your post is appropriate enough here.
> The BLINK tag is not even part
> of any standard so its a bit of a contradiction to say that you ONLY support
> standards and therefore stopped supporting l
madmax wrote:
> Dear Netscape,
>
> I would love to know why version 6.0 stopped supporting layers.
Because Layers are not a part of any HTML specification.
Personally I've never seen a need for using layers on any website that
I've designed.
Actually, I've not needed to go much beyond HTML w
David Murray wrote:
> Because Layers are not a part of any HTML specification.
>
> Personally I've never seen a need for using layers on any website that
> I've designed.
>
> Actually, I've not needed to go much beyond HTML with a little
> Javascript to do rollovers etc.
>
> My belief is tha
Gervase Markham wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
I would love to know why version 6.0 stopped supporting layers.
It never "stopped" supporting them. They were never in the plan, and havebeen deprecated since Netscape 4 beta something-or-other. They are notpart of any standard
What I want to kn
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > Actually, you'll find this in html.css:
> >
> > blink {
> > text-decoration: blink;
> > }
>
> Yep, sorry. My mistake.
>
> Why do we support , by the way? It does seem a bit inconsistent.
Nostalgia. =-]
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and
> I would love to know why version 6.0 stopped supporting layers. I know they
Because they are non-standard, not needed, not supported by anything
but NN4 which to many people is too broken to still bother about.
> limitations. Right now our advice is to produce sites wich will run on any
> 4.x
I do not want that bink tag at all, I never said that. Not in CSS nor in
HTML. I just tried to point out that Netscape STILL offers the
support in plain html wich is against any standard.
-mark
12 matches
Mail list logo
