Re: RE:

[Philip Bakelaar <pbakelaar@exit109.com>]

At 01:30 AM 7/16/96 GMT, Rex & Timothy wrote:
>Kelly wrote:
>
>>P.S.
>>By the way.  If someone wants to try to write up Tims relatavistic
>>calculations as CGI aps that would be usefull.
>
>Kelly why don't you just get a browser that supports Javascript?
>
>I'm not sure if I like others to fumble with my creations, I'd need to be
>sure they would be working correct and that I was able to change things.
>Remember that if something is wrong or does not work, that people will come
>to me asking for help (or complaining). Since only few sites allow
>CGI-scripting, the possibilities for me to maintain anything like that are
>small. If I'm right Dave's computer doesn't allow them, am I right there
>David? (I didn't try it yet)
>
>I won't force people getting newer browsers, and usually try to make
>everything accessable for older browsers, but I think if people want more,
>they should also do a little effort themselves in getting it.
>I wonder how non-fill-out-form-browsers are able to sent some output to a
>server to get back the answer. Well I could imagine that one would type an
>URL with ?+5+and+zoom at the end, but that wouldn't make things easier.
>So are CGI-scripts a solution here? Should I add ASCII-images because maybe
>some browser don't show gif or jpg-images?
>Really, in one year every browser has Java-script in it.
>
>Timothy

Very, very good point, Tim! :)