> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Uffe Holst > Sent: 20 November 2003 20:22 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [voyager] Re: What? > > > > In a message of 20-Nov-03 Matt Sealey wrote: > > > Voyager's big discrepency is in it's DOM implementation, > > not the ability to execute Javascript. Certain operations > > are not implemented fully (function calls across framesets) > > but then again certain functionality *is* implemented to > > much greater degree of compatibility and completeness than > > IBrowse (event handlers, for example) > > I do believe that you are fully correct on this. However, as a > user I really don't care about such.
Well, when certain users whine "how come IBrowse has a stable JS 1.2 and Voyager doesn't?" when that's not entirely true, I suspect that THEY, rather than you, care to know the reality of it. > What I care about is that the browser works with the sites I > like to view. Sure. And Voyager will let you change your settings and create NTLworld cable internet accounts in the UK. IBrowse will not. Takes diff'rent strokes. > Even though I liked the feel of Voyager a lot better than the feel > of any of the other Amiga browser, I have switched completely to > IBrowse. With IBrowse I am actually able to browse most sites. Is that supposed to be motivational? :) -- Matt Sealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
