Re: RE:

[KellySt@aol.com]

>Having worked with CGI a fair amount and knowing more or less what Java
>is, I can't agree at all with your proposition.  While you can do a lot
>of neat things with Java applets, they are by no means a complete
>replacement for CGI -- most importantly, because Java applets run on
>your computer rather than on the web server, there are things that would
>be easy to do with CGI that would be almost impossible to do with Java.
>Certainly, the converse is also true; you can do things in Java that are
>almost impossible to do with CGI.
>
>Probably the most useful thing you can do with CGI is search databases
>on a server or do other computation- or data-intensive tasks that would
>be impractical on a typical personal computer.  I can't see any
>efficient way to do that using Java applets.  You won't see Alta Vista
>(http://www.altavista.digital.com/) implemented as a Java applet any
>time soon.

I strongly agree.  I was reluctant to even use maps as the table of contents,
since I know a lot of people (probably most) don't have that capability.  I
also use Netscape 1.1 and Mosaic as test browsers.  Not the most curent aplet
enhanced apps.  Certainly I would strongly argue against converting things
like our on-line computer center apps to applets.

Kelly
P.S.
By the way.  If someone wants to try to write up Tims relatavistic
calculations as CGI aps that would be usefull.