> -----Original Message-----
> From: cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org
> [mailto:cctalk-bounces_at_classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Sean 'Captain Napalm'
> Conner
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 7:49 PM
> To: cctalk_at_classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Help with question about web page access
>
>
> It was thus said that the Great Jerome H. Fine once stated:
> >
> > I have 2 questions:
> >
> > Based on the information on the error page, would a normal user
> > be ALSO expected to look at the "required browsers" link when
> > the specific naming of Netscape 4.x was (and still was when this
> > post was made) displayed as an acceptable browser when I
> > forgot to turn cookies ON?
>
> Sounds like they didn't keep all the pages up in sync, which is all too
> easy to happen (happened with my site [1] and it's a relatively small site
> of only a few hundred pages [2]); with larger sites it wouldn't
> surprise me
> at all if there are whole sections "forgotten about" sitting
> there, for the
> most part dorment except for the stray user or two. You'd think going
> through the logs files would show them this, but that may be too much data
> to process for such things [3].
>
> > Could the company have continued to allow users access to the
> > web site under Netscape 4.78 by the expedient of NOT
> > providing those users the additional features that users of
> > Netscape 7.0 and later are provided? NAMELY, do the
> > fellows setting up the program have the ability to check as to
> > which version of Netscape is being used and could the program
> > have retained the old code for those users who stayed with
> > Netscape 4.78 and used to new code for those users who
> > shifted to Netscape 7.0 and later?
>
> As mentioned elsewhere, this gets expensive. I know that I
> myself decided
> not to support Netscape 4x anymore. Granted, I went out of my way to keep
About a year and a half ago, one of my higher volume sites (50,000 hits
per day, I think) showed that 95% of all users were Internet Explorer
and about 2 or 3 percent were Netscape. I still had to support Netscape,
though, and our staff spent many hours coding things so that web sites
would remain Netscape friendly.
> Netscape 4x from crashing when visiting my site [5] but a Netscape 4x user
> is going to have an experience right out of 1993 viewing my site [6]. If
> Netscape 4 just had better support for CSS (or just plain
> wouldn't crash in
> the presense of CSS) ...
>
> -spc (Basically, the only thing claiming to be Netscape 4x are
> mostly web
> crawlers ... )
>
> [1] http://www.conman.org/
>
> [2] Except for http://boston.conman.org/ and
> http://literature.conman.org/bible/ which consist of several million
> pages (theoretical) but they are dynamically generated from
> templates so it's not that much of an issue.
>
> [3] A friend of mine worked at a site (the second largest sports
> oriented site behind ESPN) where it took over 20 hours to process
> the web logs for the previous day. Not month; not week; *DAY!* I'm
> sure cleaning up 404s [4] is not high on their priority list,
> especially given the number of virii, worms and hack attempts that
> inflate such figures.
>
> [4] Page not found.
>
> [5] Netscape 4x is notorious for its hideous support of CSS.
>
> [6] http://www.flummux.org/screenshots/old.school.gif for Netscape 4x
> http://www.flummux.org/screenshots/new.school.gif for Mozilla
>
Received on Mon Aug 16 2004 - 20:26:09 BST
