From antispam at carolina.rr.com Thu Jan 2 21:26:02 2003 From: antispam at carolina.rr.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: BUG: form auto-fill Message-ID: <1A3F0210-1EDB-11D7-BE9C-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> If I go to http://www.apple.com/ical/download/index.html using OmniWeb 4.1.1 and try to download iCal (or iSync's respective site) I am directed to http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/message/internal.html. The problem is form auto-fill is filling in hidden form fields on the iCal download page. OmniWeb shouldn't auto-fill inputs with a type of hidden. Michael Brewer PowerMac G3 450Mhz/512MB/40GB Mac OS X 10.2.2 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 439 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20030102/52df7098/attachment.bin From eugene at anime.net Thu Jan 2 21:46:01 2003 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: BUG: form auto-fill In-Reply-To: <1A3F0210-1EDB-11D7-BE9C-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> References: <1A3F0210-1EDB-11D7-BE9C-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: <20030103054513.GB7807@localhost> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:20:41AM -0500, Michael Brewer wrote: : : If I go to http://www.apple.com/ical/download/index.html using : OmniWeb 4.1.1 and try to download iCal (or iSync's respective site) I : am directed to : http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/message/internal.html. The : problem is form auto-fill is filling in hidden form fields on the iCal : download page. : : OmniWeb shouldn't auto-fill inputs with a type of hidden. I was able to download iCal 1.0.1 without any problems via OmniWeb 4.1.1. Then again, I have no AutoFill stuff enabled. -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From crasmen at free.fr Fri Jan 3 11:35:04 2003 From: crasmen at free.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Corentin_Cras-M=E9neur?=) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: SharedMenu in Cocoa Apps In-Reply-To: <954C0D9C-18A0-11D7-9C1B-00039314AC2C@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <1fo7pg3.1b78w511j8cy02M%crasmen@free.fr> > Corentin, Hi Scott, > > We do plan to add support for Shared Menus in a future version of > OmniWeb now that Alco (the author of URL Manager Pro and Web > Confidential) has made framework for Cocoa applications available. Don't > worry, you won't have to wait for 5.0 to get support ? we'll roll it > into an upcoming update for 4.1.1. > Thanks for your answer. These are indeed amazing news. Thanks a lot for letting me know. I really can't wait until 4.1.1 is released :-))))))))))) Have a very happy new year, Corentin > > Sincerely, > > > Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group From crasmen at free.fr Fri Jan 3 11:35:11 2003 From: crasmen at free.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Corentin_Cras-M=E9neur?=) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: BUG: form auto-fill In-Reply-To: <1A3F0210-1EDB-11D7-BE9C-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: <1fo7pmt.zrd9glts82f4M%crasmen@free.fr> > If I go to http://www.apple.com/ical/download/index.html using OmniWeb > 4.1.1 and try to download iCal (or iSync's respective site) I am > directed to > http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/message/internal.html. The > problem is form auto-fill is filling in hidden form fields on the iCal > download page. I've had precisely the same problem and I am also using AutoFill. I had this problem both for iCal and iSync. Corentin From gdaigle at onvoymail.com Fri Jan 3 13:06:01 2003 From: gdaigle at onvoymail.com (Greg Daigle) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: Invisible font Message-ID: <200065DA-1F5F-11D7-91B0-000A27E148FE@onvoymail.com> I can not see scrolling text that is plainly visible in Explorer 5.2, even when I override page-specified colors with the Web page text color set to black in Preferences. E.g. http://www.daigle.com/studio/index.html should result in scrolling text when mousing over the up or down arrows. I'm using OS 10.2.3 and OmniWeb 4.1 (v422) From rgwhitten at earthlink.net Fri Jan 3 13:33:00 2003 From: rgwhitten at earthlink.net (Richard G. Whitten) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: OmniWeb-l Info Page Message-ID: <20030103152957226953.GyazMail.rgwhitten@earthlink.net> I recently installed unsanity.com's Metallifizer program. This application enhancer unleashes Platinum in many cocoa applications. Doesn't do much for Omniweb (4.1) however. Omniweb's toolbar doesn't like it much at all. By the by are you guys writing the rumored Mac-specific browser for Apple? Yours: Richard From jakerobb at mac.com Fri Jan 3 13:45:02 2003 From: jakerobb at mac.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: OmniWeb-l Info Page Message-ID: <3763820.1041630268319.JavaMail.jakerobb@mac.com> Richard G. Whitten wrote: >By the by are you guys writing the rumored Mac-specific >browser for Apple? They wouldn't tell you if they were. A friend of mine works at Apple, and he says he heard it's an in-house project, not based on any public works. -Jake From support at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 3 17:06:06 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott M) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: Invisible font In-Reply-To: <200065DA-1F5F-11D7-91B0-000A27E148FE@onvoymail.com> Message-ID: Greg, This page makes use of some things that OmniWeb does not yet fully support (CSS/layers). The scrolling area that appears in other browsers is actually a layer that is clipped around the edges and the arrows on the page use JavaScript to scroll the content up or down. We do plan to have support for this type of thing in the next major version of OmniWeb. Sincerely, Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Greg Daigle wrote: > I can not see scrolling text that is plainly visible in Explorer 5.2, > even when I override page-specified colors with the Web page text > color set to black in Preferences. > > E.g. http://www.daigle.com/studio/index.html should result in > scrolling text when mousing over the up or down arrows. > > I'm using OS 10.2.3 and OmniWeb 4.1 (v422) From support at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 3 20:31:00 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott M) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: BUG: form auto-fill In-Reply-To: <1A3F0210-1EDB-11D7-BE9C-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: <4FE9BB5B-1F9D-11D7-B154-000A2794C6CA@omnigroup.com> Michael, I have confirmed this problem here and filed a bug on it. We'll correct this for a future release. Thanks for your report! Sincerely, Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group On Thursday, January 2, 2003, at 09:20 PM, Michael Brewer wrote: > If I go to http://www.apple.com/ical/download/index.html using OmniWeb > 4.1.1 and try to download iCal (or iSync's respective site) I am > directed to > http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/message/internal.html. The > problem is form auto-fill is filling in hidden form fields on the iCal > download page. > > OmniWeb shouldn't auto-fill inputs with a type of hidden. > > Michael Brewer > PowerMac G3 450Mhz/512MB/40GB > Mac OS X 10.2.2 From millere at comcast.net Sat Jan 4 18:46:00 2003 From: millere at comcast.net (Edward Miller) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: Current Omniweb development Message-ID: Dear Omnigroup, I would like to know when the next update to OmniWeb will be taking place. It has been a very long time since 4.1.1 was released and Chimera seems to be attracting OmniWeb users in droves. While I still support OmniWeb, I do think some type of description on your progress would go a long way. Sincerely, Edward Miller From support at omnigroup.com Sun Jan 5 04:14:01 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott M.) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: Current Omniweb development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2D13DF13-20A7-11D7-92A8-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> Edward, 4.1.1 was released a little more than 3 months ago. The next update will include some new features in addition to a number of bug fixes so it's taking a bit longer than a smaller, bug-fix-only update would. We'd love to get updates out more frequently in the future and we plan to do so, but more significant updates will take a little more time. Sincerely, Scott M. Support Engineer The Omni Group On Saturday, January 4, 2003, at 06:44 PM, Edward Miller wrote: > Dear Omnigroup, > > I would like to know when the next update to OmniWeb will be taking > place. It has been a very long time since 4.1.1 was released and > Chimera seems to be attracting OmniWeb users in droves. While I still > support OmniWeb, I do think some type of description on your progress > would go a long way. > > Sincerely, > > Edward Miller From ldeck at tpg.com.au Mon Jan 6 16:35:01 2003 From: ldeck at tpg.com.au (Lachlan Deck) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: QuickTime Streaming problem...OmniWeb 4.1.1 Message-ID: <83B36B65-21D8-11D7-AD70-0005025E2371@tpg.com.au> Hi there, I was just wondering if someone might be able to let me know if there is happens to be a known issue with not being able to play some Quicktime Movies from OmniWeb? e.g., I'm trying to make sure that I'm all ready to watch the Keynote that's coming up - but in OmniWeb when clicking on the links that are below the picures in the following address http://www.epicrecords.com/mpeg4/121002/?qt The popup window appears but the QT doesn't play whereas in IE it does. I'm on Mac OS X 10.1.5...thanks. with regards, -- Lachlan Deck ldeck@tpg.com.au From tritch at adelphia.net Mon Jan 6 19:59:01 2003 From: tritch at adelphia.net (Tom Ritch) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: QuickTime Streaming problem...OmniWeb 4.1.1 In-Reply-To: <83B36B65-21D8-11D7-AD70-0005025E2371@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <297BEB45-21F4-11D7-85EC-000393516742@adelphia.net> Works fine for me. QT 6.0.2, OW 4.1.1, OS X 10.2.3 On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 04:39 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote: > http://www.epicrecords.com/mpeg4/121002/?qt > > The popup window appears but the QT doesn't play whereas in IE it does. > > I'm on Mac OS X 10.1.5...thanks. From andrew_dunning at mac.com Tue Jan 7 04:19:01 2003 From: andrew_dunning at mac.com (Andrew Dunning) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 4.1.1 (v424.6) Feedback (license AOPCVXZHYABHICGNMGIQNEVNKRGPGGWABHW) Message-ID: <2E2269C1-223A-11D7-A2B9-00039317038E@mac.com> I noticed that the bottom of this page was getting cut off by the table: http://www.freeverse.com/boardgames.mgi I haven't had time to investigate why this is happening, but this doesn't happen in IE, of course. Andrew From paulbuckley at comcast.net Tue Jan 7 10:16:01 2003 From: paulbuckley at comcast.net (Paul Buckley) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: ok, what's your response? Message-ID: Dear OG, I've been with you for a long time as an OW user and have enjoyed watching your company succeed. Please let me (us) know your response and reaction to the Safari as soon as possible. From eugene at anime.net Tue Jan 7 11:28:02 2003 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: [ot] safari? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030107192222.GA13596@localhost> Holy... Thoughts? Especially from The Omni Group? http://www.apple.com/safari/ -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From fphall at attbi.com Tue Jan 7 13:08:03 2003 From: fphall at attbi.com (Pete Hall) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: [ot] safari? In-Reply-To: <20030107192222.GA13596@localhost> Message-ID: On 1/7/03 2:22 PM, "Eugene Lee" wrote: > Holy... Thoughts? Especially from The Omni Group? > > http://www.apple.com/safari/ > Oh my goodness!! If that's a Beta, I can't wait for the GM!!! goodbye IE... Pete Hall From paulbuckley at comcast.net Tue Jan 7 13:39:04 2003 From: paulbuckley at comcast.net (Paul Buckley) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: [ot] safari? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <13F597AE-2288-11D7-AE62-003065C1F108@comcast.net> but probably not goodbye OW, yet anyway. no shortcuts, source viewer, or auto-fill coarse cookie management --I'd expect added features with future releases bookmark management much less fluid --sounds like Steve likes things (too) simple and I would not expect OW to lag behind here. I do like that the bookmarks are treated like addresses in Address Book. A unified database that OW could use, too, would be great (sync your bookmarks on the road, etc). IMHO: OW is and probably will remain a more full-featured browser. If only it would work. -PB From andrew_dunning at mac.com Tue Jan 7 14:19:34 2003 From: andrew_dunning at mac.com (Andrew Dunning) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: [ot] safari? In-Reply-To: <20030107192222.GA13596@localhost> Message-ID: Well, it's certainly a nice browser. I suppose that time will tell what happens. I can't help but think that The Omni Group must have something to do with this. After all, in the Preferences, isn't that the old OmniWeb 4.1 icon (the beloved Blue Marble) in the Bookmarks preferences? Andrew On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 02:22 PM, Eugene Lee wrote: > Holy... Thoughts? Especially from The Omni Group? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 447 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20030107/6a571038/attachment.bin From dailygrind at thewonderllama.com Tue Jan 7 15:23:01 2003 From: dailygrind at thewonderllama.com (Brendan Sweeney) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: Fwd: QuickTime Streaming problem...OmniWeb 4.1.1 Message-ID: Heh... didn't reply to all... ~BS Begin forwarded message: > From: Brendan Sweeney > Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 8:49:21 PM US/Pacific > To: Tom Ritch > Subject: Re: QuickTime Streaming problem...OmniWeb 4.1.1 > > I felt dirty clicking, but it worked for me too. I'm on 10.2.3 though. > ~BS > > On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 07:57 PM, Tom Ritch wrote: > >> Works fine for me. >> >> QT 6.0.2, OW 4.1.1, OS X 10.2.3 >> >> On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 04:39 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote: >> >>> http://www.epicrecords.com/mpeg4/121002/?qt >>> >>> The popup window appears but the QT doesn't play whereas in IE it >>> does. >>> >>> I'm on Mac OS X 10.1.5...thanks. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniWeb-l mailing list >> OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l >> > http://www.thewonderllama.com > > http://www.thewonderllama.com From dailygrind at thewonderllama.com Tue Jan 7 15:25:02 2003 From: dailygrind at thewonderllama.com (Brendan Sweeney) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: Fwd: [ot] safari? Message-ID: Heh... didn't reply to all... ~BS Begin forwarded message: > From: Brendan Sweeney > Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 12:15:25 PM US/Pacific > To: Eugene Lee > Subject: Re: [ot] safari? > > OW still beats them in interface (IMO), but Safari does way better in > standard support, and can gracefully go "back" in a frame site. > ~BS > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 11:22 AM, Eugene Lee wrote: > >> Holy... Thoughts? Especially from The Omni Group? >> >> http://www.apple.com/safari/ >> >> >> -- >> Eugene Lee >> eugene@anime.net >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniWeb-l mailing list >> OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l >> > http://www.thewonderllama.com > > http://www.thewonderllama.com From owlist at mo.com Tue Jan 7 15:36:00 2003 From: owlist at mo.com (Maurice Weitman) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:49 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <13F597AE-2288-11D7-AE62-003065C1F108@comcast.net> References: <13F597AE-2288-11D7-AE62-003065C1F108@comcast.net> Message-ID: At 4:36 PM -0500 on 1/7/03, Paul Buckley wrote: >but probably not goodbye OW, yet anyway. > >no shortcuts, source viewer, or auto-fill >coarse cookie management > --I'd expect added features with future releases >bookmark management much less fluid > --sounds like Steve likes things (too) simple and I would not >expect OW to lag behind here. I do like that the bookmarks are >treated like addresses in Address Book. A unified database that OW >could use, too, would be great (sync your bookmarks on the road, >etc). > > IMHO: OW is and probably will remain a more full-featured >browser. If only it would work. Uhhh... Safari's got a source viewer under its View menu. Of course, it's nothing like OW's; just a viewer. For a pre-release, first-version beta, Safari is simply stunning. No, it's not as full-featured as other, more mature browsers, but still... it's very, very impressive for its blazing speed and compliance; and it's quite usable. I might have missed the details of Jobs's comments about Open Sourcing, but I believe he said that Apple will be sharing its Safari code that enables such speed and standards compliance to others. This should bode well for OmniGroup and OW, since what sets OW apart from other browsers is none of the above; it's their usability features and elegance. Maybe Safari, as an Open Source project, will be able to have a feature set that rival's OW's. I'd bet that OG has been privy to some, if not all details of Safari's development; perhaps that's why there's been no talk or evidence of a v. 5 as yet. I surely hope that's the case, and that OG will come out ahead for all the effort and time they've put into OW. Regards, Maurice From guifa at charter.net Tue Jan 7 18:27:01 2003 From: guifa at charter.net (Matthew Stuckwisch) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [ot] safari? In-Reply-To: <20030107192222.GA13596@localhost> Message-ID: El martes, 7 ener, 2003, a las 13:22 US/Central, Eugene Lee escribi?: > Holy... Thoughts? Especially from The Omni Group? It's a pretty nice browser. I've got some of the same complaints as others, and also noticed that similar icon between the old OW icon [1] and some of Safari's stuff. There are a couple of reasons that I prefer OmniWeb still though. OmniWeb lets me drag bookmarks from the titles of windows. This is true drag and drop. Yeah, you can drag and drop in Safari, but only AFTER having added it. Also, I do a decent amount of HTML stuff within OmniWeb simply because it's an outstanding HTML source editor. Real time color coding is one of the reasons I really like it. OmniWeb is pretty snappy, but not as snappy as Safari. That's not to say OW might not get MUCH faster with the new release (aren't they switching to more custom widgets to reduce the unnecessary extras that the current widgets provide?) I'll probably end up using the two of them together, but either way, IE and Mozilla have gotten the boot. Matthew Stuckwisch [AIM/MSN]{GuifaSwimmer} | [Yahoo!]{SapphireTree} | [ICQ]{137477701} [IRC]{guifa}(esperNET / GamesNet) |?[E-mail]{guifa@mac.com} From dhampson at pullman.com Tue Jan 7 18:45:01 2003 From: dhampson at pullman.com (David Hampson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2BC1C388-22B3-11D7-B935-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 03:35 PM, Maurice Weitman wrote: > At 4:36 PM -0500 on 1/7/03, Paul Buckley wrote: >> {snip} > > Uhhh... Safari's got a source viewer under its View menu. Of course, > it's nothing like OW's; just a viewer. > > For a pre-release, first-version beta, Safari is simply stunning. No, > it's not as full-featured as other, more mature browsers, but still... > it's very, very impressive for its blazing speed and compliance; and > it's quite usable. > > I might have missed the details of Jobs's comments about Open > Sourcing, but I believe he said that Apple will be sharing its Safari > code that enables such speed and standards compliance to others. This > should bode well for OmniGroup and OW, since what sets OW apart from > other browsers is none of the above; it's their usability features and > elegance. {snip} Apple _uses_ a lot of gpl code, Help->Acknowledges has GPL2 listed. There are plenty of other copyrights mentioned. Safari fails with a lot of css. One of my pages wont even show up. (OmniWeb scrambles this one a lot, but at least it's readable.) There is no navigator bar telling you where a link will go when you hover. No tabs, which OW has promised for version 5. The only things I like are bookmarks, progress bar in the URL window, and SPEED. (Darn its fast!) But, you can't even customize the toolbar! -Dave Everyone knows what a curve is, until he has studied enough mathematics to become confused through the countless number of possible exceptions. Felix Klein From kc at omnigroup.com Tue Jan 7 18:59:58 2003 From: kc at omnigroup.com (Ken Case) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? Message-ID: OmniWeb is a browser which provides a very rich browsing experience, and is a very successful product for us despite free competition from the web industry's giants, Microsoft and Netscape. OmniWeb's biggest weakness has been a lack of compatibility with some web pages, and solving this by implementing newer web standards is the focus of our current efforts on OmniWeb. Safari appears to be a great alternative to Internet Explorer as a free web browser which ships with the operating system. It seems to be quite fast, small, and easy to use (much like the new 12" PowerBook), and I'm very glad to see Apple basing their product on standards and open source technologies. But the most interesting thing about Safari where OmniWeb is concerned is not the application itself: the wonderful news for OmniWeb is that Apple has based it on a fast, compatible (and small!) rendering engine which is tuned for Mac OS X, and which they are making available to the entire Mac OS X development community! (For details, see .) This means that we may be able to reach our compatibility and speed goals for OmniWeb much more quickly than when we were working alone, and then return our focus to doing what we do best: providing a rich browsing experience. Thank you, Apple! Ken -- Ken Case CEO The Omni Group From stevos at blizzmac.com Tue Jan 7 19:24:01 2003 From: stevos at blizzmac.com (Stevos) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <2BC1C388-22B3-11D7-B935-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> Message-ID: <77CA2BDE-22B8-11D7-B39E-0003935A4FC0@blizzmac.com> You can show the link location. View > Status Bar. Just FYI On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 08:44 PM, David Hampson wrote: > From paulbuckley at comcast.net Tue Jan 7 19:26:01 2003 From: paulbuckley at comcast.net (Paul Buckley) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 09:57 PM, Ken Case wrote: > the wonderful news for OmniWeb is that Apple has based it on a fast, > compatible (and small!) rendering engine which is tuned for Mac OS X, > and which they are making available to the entire Mac OS X development > community! ...we may be able to reach our compatibility and speed > goals for OmniWeb much more quickly than when we were working alone, > and then return our focus to doing what we do best: providing a rich > browsing experience. Good answer! Thanks for the word. btw,I don't recall KHTML being talked about on this list as an alternative but instead it seemed that you were working on your own rendering engine for 5.0. Did the big house scoop the little shop using open source? can anyone here comment on KHTML? -PB -and one more thing--what's the real story about the icon? was it that profitable? From dhampson at pullman.com Tue Jan 7 19:36:44 2003 From: dhampson at pullman.com (David Hampson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1BA29EB8-22BA-11D7-B935-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 07:24 PM, Paul Buckley wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 09:57 PM, Ken Case wrote: > >> the wonderful news for OmniWeb is that Apple has based it on a fast, >> compatible (and small!) rendering engine which is tuned for Mac OS X, >> and which they are making available to the entire Mac OS X >> development community! ...we may be able to reach our compatibility >> and speed goals for OmniWeb much more quickly than when we were >> working alone, and then return our focus to doing what we do best: >> providing a rich browsing experience. > {sni[} > > -and one more thing--what's the real story about the icon? was it that > profitable? > > I'm not sure about khtml, but OW no longer has to pay license fees for the SpiderMonkey engine. -Dave There are two ways to do great mathematics. The first way is to be smarter than everybody else. The second way is to be stupider than everybody else -- but persistent. Raoul Bott From jswitte at bloomington.in.us Tue Jan 7 19:46:00 2003 From: jswitte at bloomington.in.us (Jim Witte) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <2BC1C388-22B3-11D7-B935-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> Message-ID: <930CA774-22BB-11D7-A105-000393BF0854@bloomington.in.us> > The only things I like are bookmarks, progress bar in the URL window, > and SPEED. (Darn its fast!) How do people think Safari compares with Chimera on speed? I'm downloading Safari now, and I use Chimera exclusively now because of the speed, only using IE every now and then because Chimera doesn't do auto-fill yet (the "type ahead" kind like IE does) Jim From dailygrind at thewonderllama.com Tue Jan 7 19:54:24 2003 From: dailygrind at thewonderllama.com (Brendan Sweeney) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2661C8AE-22BC-11D7-8F23-000393696EB8@thewonderllama.com> On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 06:57 PM, Ken Case wrote: > This means that we may be able to reach our compatibility and speed > goals for OmniWeb much > more quickly than when we were working alone, and then return our > focus to > doing You're not saying that OW is going to use KHTML are you? > what we do best: providing a rich browsing experience. Darn straight. ~BS http://www.thewonderllama.com From eugene at anime.net Tue Jan 7 22:08:01 2003 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030108060733.GB15198@localhost> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 06:57:38PM -0800, Ken Case wrote: : : But the most interesting thing about Safari where OmniWeb is concerned is : not the application itself: the wonderful news for OmniWeb is that Apple : has based it on a fast, compatible (and small!) rendering engine which is : tuned for Mac OS X, and which they are making available to the entire Mac : OS X development community! (For details, see : .) This means that : we may be able to reach our compatibility and speed goals for OmniWeb much : more quickly than when we were working alone, and then return our focus to : doing what we do best: providing a rich browsing experience. Indeed! This means that OW can leverage all the benefits from WebCore and JavaScriptCore, which Apple has dedicated a special team for. And the OW coders can focus less on problems with various Mozilla projects and more on features. In a way, this is how many people felt about the Chimera project, writing a clean new browser based on Mozilla cores. If OW can do the same yet maintain (and add more) features by leveraging WebCore and JavaScriptCore, then I will continue to be a happy *paying* OmniWeb user. Ken, still taking suggestions for OW 5? :-) -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From eugene at anime.net Tue Jan 7 22:09:01 2003 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <2BC1C388-22B3-11D7-B935-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> References: <2BC1C388-22B3-11D7-B935-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> Message-ID: <20030108060848.GC15198@localhost> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 06:44:55PM -0800, David Hampson wrote: : : Safari fails with a lot of css. One of my pages wont even show up. What pages? Also, have you validated that CSS code with the W3C? -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From omniweb at sjk.us Wed Jan 8 00:15:01 2003 From: omniweb at sjk.us (Scott J. Kramer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <20030108060848.GC15198@localhost> References: <2BC1C388-22B3-11D7-B935-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> <20030108060848.GC15198@localhost> Message-ID: <2147483647.1041977666@aura.luxnet.org> --On Wednesday, January 8, 2003 0:08 -0600 Eugene Lee wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 06:44:55PM -0800, David Hampson wrote: > : > : Safari fails with a lot of css. One of my pages wont even show up. > > What pages? Also, have you validated that CSS code with the W3C? I noticed the "MacEdition Guide to CSS2 Support in Mac-only Browsers" page: ... has already been updated to include Safari. -sjk From DILLOMAN at aol.com Wed Jan 8 02:39:03 2003 From: DILLOMAN at aol.com (DILLOMAN@aol.com) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [ot] safari? Message-ID: <607F7055.36C90F52.00670078@aol.com> Mr. Lee, I downloaded Safari and came up with these comments: 1) ?It's a very small download (3mb), so its a quick d/l. 2) ?It's not as fast as they claim - at least on my QuickSilver G4/1GHz DP. 3) ?It hasn't got many features, as compared to OmniWeb. 4) ?Its still in beta form, therefore, It may have many more features at final release. 5) ?Its has a very smooth feel to it - Duh! ?It is made by the same folks who made OS X. I'm going to d/l it on my iMac G3/400 (OS X.2.3 - home Mac) & give it a run on that, to see if it's at all better than OmniWeb. ?I have only been using O/W for about 2 weeks now, and it is TREMENDOUS! ?So Safari has a lot of ground to make up. Just my humble opinion. ----------------------------------------------------- Eugene Lee writes: >Holy... ?Thoughts? ?Especially from The Omni Group? > > ? ?http://www.apple.com/safari/ >Eugene Lee >eugene@anime.net -- J. R. Rosen Armadillo Press-Printing & Graphics 305 Wells Fargo Dr., Suite 4 Houston, Texas 77090 281-586-9383 (office) 281-586-9876 (fax) dilloman@armadillo-press.com dilloman@aol.com From omniweb at sjk.us Wed Jan 8 02:39:10 2003 From: omniweb at sjk.us (Scott J. Kramer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [ot] safari? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1041986318@aura.luxnet.org> --On Tuesday, January 7, 2003 20:26 -0600 Matthew Stuckwisch wrote: [...] > There are a couple of reasons that I prefer OmniWeb still though. > OmniWeb lets me drag bookmarks from the titles of windows. This is true > drag and drop. Yeah, you can drag and drop in Safari, but only AFTER > having added it. You can use Show All Bookmarks to "overlay" the bookmark window on the active content window, drag/drop a URL from any location window, then use Hide All Bookmarks to restore the original content window. And bookmark folders are spring loaded. That's as far I got with a few minutes of tinkering. :-) [...] > I'll probably end up using the two of them together, but either way, IE > and Mozilla have gotten the boot. It's now a three-ring browser circus for me. OmniWeb's still primary, for its features and style/feel; Chimera, for speed and tabbed browsing; Safari, for curiosity and comparison. I'm still puzzled how to manage bookmarks across all of them. Maybe it doesn't matter if they each use their own separate, unsychronized copy since each browser is intended to access different sites. OW's "Play up to N times" image preference for animations is one of several rarely-mentioned features I like that the other browsers I use don't have. Without it, Chimera likes to consume CPU on animated GIF pages (and at other times, for unknown reasons), and I notice it on my iBook 600. Safari is generally more CPU-friendly, tho' slower than Chimera on sites where speed is priority, and lacks too many of OW's priority features. And didn't someone say browser wars ended a few years ago? Maybe on Windows, but that issue is certainly alive and kicking on OS X. :-) -sjk From tratnyek at ese.ogi.edu Wed Jan 8 08:53:01 2003 From: tratnyek at ese.ogi.edu (Paul Tratnyek) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [ot] safari? (synchronizing bookmarks) In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1041986318@aura.luxnet.org> References: <2147483647.1041986318@aura.luxnet.org> Message-ID: >It's now a three-ring browser circus for me. OmniWeb's still primary, >for its features and style/feel; Chimera, for speed and tabbed browsing; >Safari, for curiosity and comparison. I'm still puzzled how to manage >bookmarks across all of them. I use Bookit periodically, to synchronize book marks among several browsers. It's an extra step, but easy and effective. http://www.everydaysoftware.net Presumably Bookit will support Safari soon. From larkost at softhome.net Wed Jan 8 13:52:34 2003 From: larkost at softhome.net (Karl Kuehn) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [ot] safari? In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1041986318@aura.luxnet.org> Message-ID: <1EFCCBE3-2353-11D7-A795-003065C12208@softhome.net> I have been (slowly) working on a small program to try and sync bookmarks between running browsers. Unfortunately there is little support for programatically working with bookmarks in the current crop of browsers. The guys over at Omni have taken my requests for AppleEvent access, but that will not come until a future version (presumably). I have been looking for a way to do this, but so far I need to quit all of the browsers to get anything to work. I would really like it if Apple setup a bookmarking facility something like the AddressBook framework, where any application could add it's own data to the central database (including custom information) so that All web browsers (and other applications) could share this information. Maybe that part of Safari will fall under the ASPL license, and I can work on this myself... Karl Kuehn larkost@softhome.net On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 05:38 AM, Scott J. Kramer wrote: > I'm still puzzled how to manage > bookmarks across all of them. Maybe it doesn't matter if they each use > their own separate, unsychronized copy since each browser is intended > to > access different sites. From dbeery at rbbsystems.com Wed Jan 8 15:34:01 2003 From: dbeery at rbbsystems.com (Dick Beery) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <77CA2BDE-22B8-11D7-B39E-0003935A4FC0@blizzmac.com> Message-ID: <86BC2D46-2361-11D7-AE5D-000393A57BA8@rbbsystems.com> I have been using Safari for two days and although it is missing features such as opening page behind current window and picking folder for saving images. However Safari does work properly with ebay and I am also not getting did not load page errors that I got with OW. On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 10:22 PM, Stevos wrote: > You can show the link location. View > Status Bar. > Just FYI > On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 08:44 PM, David Hampson wrote: > >> > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > > Dick Beery, CEO RBB Systems, Inc. 8767 TR 513 Shreve, Ohio 44676 330.567.2906 dbeery@rbbsystems.com www.rbbsystems.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 835 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20030108/ede4623e/attachment.bin From roth at visualclick.de Wed Jan 8 16:09:01 2003 From: roth at visualclick.de (Christian Roth) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <86BC2D46-2361-11D7-AE5D-000393A57BA8@rbbsystems.com> References: <86BC2D46-2361-11D7-AE5D-000393A57BA8@rbbsystems.com> Message-ID: <20030109000650.2832@mail.visualclick.de> I gave Safari a short test drive today out of curiosity, and I was - contrary to many others, obviously - not even slightly impressed. Why? On my machine, OmniWeb has been faster in dl'ing and displaying the complete page on all pages I tried, on some even by estimated 20-30%. And we all know that OmniWeb is not known to be the fastest browser on earth. Also, Safari had display problems on some pages I visited which OmniWeb has not, again though OW is not considered the most conforming browser on earth, either. Test page: , a very complex page. Try viewing it in a very small window. Testing on G4/Dual 800, 512MB RAM, Radeon 8500, DSL. Considering all the very nice features I use in everyday browsing like shortcuts (above all), HTML viewer, customizable toolbar, considerably better download manager and the error log, OW still remains by far my favorite browser. Of course, it has its quirks and issues sometimes, but this is why I am... looking forward to OW 5, Christian From antispam at carolina.rr.com Wed Jan 8 16:51:02 2003 From: antispam at carolina.rr.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <86BC2D46-2361-11D7-AE5D-000393A57BA8@rbbsystems.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 06:33 PM, Dick Beery wrote: > I have been using Safari for two days and although it is missing > features such as opening page behind current window and picking folder > for saving images. Command+Shift+Click I like it. From crasmen at free.fr Wed Jan 8 17:57:01 2003 From: crasmen at free.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Corentin_Cras-M=E9neur?=) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1fohgka.13jvz2yue2lxcM%crasmen@free.fr> > This means that > we may be able to reach our compatibility and speed goals for OmniWeb much > more quickly than when we were working alone, and then return our focus to > doing what we do best: providing a rich browsing experience. As far as I am concerned, speed is not everything. Thanks to all the great feature this application has OW is still my favorite browser. I am truly glad OW will be able to benefit from the Safari engine to be even faster and more compatible :-))) The killer browser, safari inside, OmniWeb outside ;-)) Corentin From omniweb at sjk.us Wed Jan 8 19:22:02 2003 From: omniweb at sjk.us (Scott J. Kramer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <20030109000650.2832@mail.visualclick.de> References: <86BC2D46-2361-11D7-AE5D-000393A57BA8@rbbsystems.com> <20030109000650.2832@mail.visualclick.de> Message-ID: <2147483647.1042046460@aura.luxnet.org> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 1:06 +0100 Christian Roth wrote: > I gave Safari a short test drive today out of curiosity, and I was - > contrary to many others, obviously - not even slightly impressed. Why? On > my machine, OmniWeb has been faster in dl'ing and displaying the complete > page on all pages I tried, on some even by estimated 20-30%. And we all > know that OmniWeb is not known to be the fastest browser on earth. [...] Interesting. There are only a few sites/pages I've browsed where OW loads faster than Chimera or Safari. Safari doesn't appear to use disk caching (like Chimera); does anyone know for sure? When I loaded pages earlier in Safari it was as sluggish as I've seen it, but recently it loaded about the same speed as Chimera usually does. Same results after restarting, which is why I'm curious about caching. Wish I'd have checked with Chimera and OW at the same time to get a clue if it were a temporary site issue. Still, OW is generally slower, tho' I use it to view specific movie pages that I've previously created webloc files for with Chimera. Safari can also create "d" filenames and I think the next 4.x release of OW will, too. I've recently been pondering whether directories of webloc files might be a temporary alternative to trying to manage bookmarks in three browsers. That topic is more related to another part of this thread, tho'. Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in sharing or hearing personal browser speed difference stories anymore since there are many factors contributing to the differences and it seems to just end up being a subjective jumble of meaningless confusion. Still, your explanation nudges my curiosity, Christian. :-) > Considering all the very nice features I use in everyday browsing like > shortcuts (above all), HTML viewer, customizable toolbar, considerably > better download manager and the error log, OW still remains by far my > favorite browser. OW's my overall favorite, too. I like that OW's download manager displays the file address, which I sometimes copy+paste into the "finder comment" of the file. That used to happen automatically, but was disabled for some reason. Hoping that feature eventually returns as an option (in OW5?). -sjk From vauk at mac.com Wed Jan 8 20:52:01 2003 From: vauk at mac.com (Jerry Vauk) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042046460@aura.luxnet.org> Message-ID: <0C8BEF60-238E-11D7-8296-0003936C44EE@mac.com> I use OW for the majority of my browsing but occasionally there is a site that does not work / render properly so I fall back to MS IE. I am glad to see Safari. I will allow me to dump IE finally and use it as my background browser. Now if I can figure out how to delete all the MS crap from my machine:-) I see Safari having no impact on my use and need for OW - I love the browser and look forward to future releases. Safari provides a solid back up browser. /Jerry From andy at templeman.org.uk Wed Jan 8 22:46:01 2003 From: andy at templeman.org.uk (Andy Templeman) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <86BC2D46-2361-11D7-AE5D-000393A57BA8@rbbsystems.com> References: <86BC2D46-2361-11D7-AE5D-000393A57BA8@rbbsystems.com> Message-ID: <a05200a00ba42cac5b037@[158.152.21.223]> >I have been using Safari for two days and although it is missing >features such as opening page behind current window Cmd-Shift-Click a link. From roth at visualclick.de Thu Jan 9 01:40:01 2003 From: roth at visualclick.de (Christian Roth) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: [to] safari? In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042046460@aura.luxnet.org> References: <2147483647.1042046460@aura.luxnet.org> Message-ID: <20030109093703.9863@mail.visualclick.de> >Interesting. There are only a few sites/pages I've browsed where OW >loads faster than Chimera or Safari. I made a mistake during speed tests and need to correct my previous statement: - OW is faster or at least as fast as Safari on compact and moderately sized pages - Safari is considerably faster on complex, long pages. I'm sorry for the misinformation. Also, sorry for extending this thread; after all, it's an OW mailing list, not a Safari one. Regards, Christian. From eugene at anime.net Thu Jan 9 03:42:01 2003 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? In-Reply-To: <1fohgka.13jvz2yue2lxcM%crasmen@free.fr> References: <Pine.OSX.4.44.0301071853550.3502-100000@machop.omnigroup.com> <1fohgka.13jvz2yue2lxcM%crasmen@free.fr> Message-ID: <20030109113921.GD438@localhost> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 07:55:48PM -0600, Corentin Cras-M?neur wrote: : Ken Case wrote: : > : > This means that : > we may be able to reach our compatibility and speed goals for OmniWeb much : > more quickly than when we were working alone, and then return our focus to : > doing what we do best: providing a rich browsing experience. : : As far as I am concerned, speed is not everything. Thanks to all the : great feature this application has OW is still my favorite browser. I am : truly glad OW will be able to benefit from the Safari engine to be even : faster and more compatible :-))) The killer browser, safari inside, : OmniWeb outside ;-)) The biggest standards compliance issues with Safari so far seem to be with CSS1 & CSS2. OW still does better in these areas. I hope the OW developers will help out on improving CSS support in WebCore. -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From patrick at elixir.ch Thu Jan 9 05:11:01 2003 From: patrick at elixir.ch (Patrick Armbruster) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? In-Reply-To: <20030109113921.GD438@localhost> Message-ID: <93673D72-23D3-11D7-8D32-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> *cough* ... I don't know what you're talking about, but Safari has far better support for both CSS 1 and CSS 2 as far as I can see...? Am Donnerstag, 09.01.03, um 12:39 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Eugene Lee: > The biggest standards compliance issues with Safari so far seem to be > with CSS1 & CSS2. OW still does better in these areas. I hope the > OW developers will help out on improving CSS support in WebCore. Patrick From wjl3191 at osfmail.isc.rit.edu Thu Jan 9 09:52:49 2003 From: wjl3191 at osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Elizabeth Lemke) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? In-Reply-To: <20030109113921.GD438@localhost> Message-ID: <AD067C88-23F9-11D7-96F4-00306584263C@osfmail.rit.edu> On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 06:39 AM, Eugene Lee wrote: > > The biggest standards compliance issues with Safari so far seem to be > with CSS1 & CSS2. OW still does better in these areas. I hope the > OW developers will help out on improving CSS support in WebCore. > What do you mean? It renders my page properly (bethdomain.org uses CSS1) and OmniWeb does not. I've been following this thread for a while but, had nothing to say that was constructive. I do however use Safari now as my primary browser. Until OmniWeb fixes its CSS issues (there are many), I will be using Safari as my primary browser. When that happens I'll give OmniWeb another go. -Beth ------------------------------------ Elizabeth Lemke http://www.bethdomain.org From patrick at elixir.ch Thu Jan 9 10:03:42 2003 From: patrick at elixir.ch (Patrick Armbruster) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML Message-ID: <D3C3CF6C-23FB-11D7-BB2A-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> I've been following the Safari discussion for a while. Ken made some hints about OW incorporating the same rendering engine in the future, and I want to applaud OmniGroup for such a move (if they do it in the end). Safari renders standards compliant - at least where I go on Safari... But... Won't using the KHTML engine make it impossible for OmniGroup to charge for the browser? Greets, Patrick From jakerobb at mac.com Thu Jan 9 10:13:55 2003 From: jakerobb at mac.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? Message-ID: <3444307.1042135665187.JavaMail.jakerobb@mac.com> Beth wrote: >I do however use Safari now as my primary browser. Omniweb is still my primary browser. It renders 95% of the pages I go to perfectly, and it's fast enough on my G4/450 that I don't spend more than a couple seconds waiting. I use many of OW's features (shortcuts, for one) that I'm not willing to give up just for that one page in twenty. The only thing that's changed is that my fallback browser is now Safari, not IE. :-) -Jake From manfred at schubert-it.de Thu Jan 9 12:34:07 2003 From: manfred at schubert-it.de (Manfred Schubert) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Open URL N/O/S In-Reply-To: <20030109201457.3592@smtp.mac.com> Message-ID: <8AAEB39C-2411-11D7-AA43-003065E56836@schubert-it.de> Now I have three of these "Open URL with..." items in the Services menu. I think it is time to get rid off these and replace them with a generic "Open URL in Web Browser" Service that opens the selection in the default browser (that would also have the additional benefit that it would work with Mozilla, IE, iCab etc.) Manfred From jonhendry at mac.com Thu Jan 9 12:58:01 2003 From: jonhendry at mac.com (Jonathan Hendry) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML In-Reply-To: <D3C3CF6C-23FB-11D7-BB2A-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> Message-ID: <F9C0E31C-2414-11D7-AA9D-003065F69D4C@mac.com> On Thursday, Jan 9, 2003, at 12:57 America/New_York, Patrick Armbruster wrote: > I've been following the Safari discussion for a while. Ken made some > hints about OW incorporating the same rendering engine in the future, > and I want to applaud OmniGroup for such a move (if they do it in the > end). Safari renders standards compliant - at least where I go on > Safari... > > But... > > Won't using the KHTML engine make it impossible for OmniGroup to > charge for the browser? Depends. The KHTML stuff is in a framework. If the KHTML license is like LGPL, Omni could still sell the app. I think - I'm not an open source license pedant/lawyer. Note that Apple doesn't provide source for Safari, just their wrappers around the KDE stuff. For Apple, at least, it seems that using KHTML hasn't required them to release source for the entire Safari application. The same would be true of Omni. From omniweb at sjk.us Thu Jan 9 13:20:48 2003 From: omniweb at sjk.us (Scott J. Kramer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Open URL N/O/S In-Reply-To: <8AAEB39C-2411-11D7-AA43-003065E56836@schubert-it.de> References: <8AAEB39C-2411-11D7-AA43-003065E56836@schubert-it.de> Message-ID: <2147483647.1042111022@aura.luxnet.org> --On Thursday, January 9, 2003 21:32 +0100 Manfred Schubert <manfred@schubert-it.de> wrote: > Now I have three of these "Open URL with..." items in the Services menu. > I think it is time to get rid off these and replace them with a generic > "Open URL in Web Browser" Service that opens the selection in the > default browser I want the generality of opening a selected URL with *any* browser, not just the default. And I'd prefer a separate Services menu for web-type stuff like this. Would be very nice to create your own Services menu hierarchy, as you can do with Script Menu. Thanks for pointing out the new "Open URL in Safari..." Services shortcut, which fortunately differs from the others. Does anyone know what to tweak so the "Open URL in" shorcuts for Navigator and OmniWeb don't conflict? > (that would also have the additional benefit that it would work with > Mozilla, IE, iCab etc.) Do any of those support Services? -sjk From antispam at carolina.rr.com Thu Jan 9 16:12:03 2003 From: antispam at carolina.rr.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Open URL N/O/S In-Reply-To: <8AAEB39C-2411-11D7-AA43-003065E56836@schubert-it.de> Message-ID: <562F3014-242F-11D7-89FE-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 03:32 PM, Manfred Schubert wrote: > Now I have three of these "Open URL with..." items in the Services > menu. I think it is time to get rid off these and replace them with a > generic "Open URL in Web Browser" Service that opens the selection in > the default browser (that would also have the additional benefit that > it would work with Mozilla, IE, iCab etc.) I don't think Services work that way. They are advertised by the application, not the operating system. I suppose if Apple could get the browser developer's to agree not to advertise their own, they could advertise one from the OS that would open the URL in the default browser. However, I think the better solution is for browser developers to give a preference for whether or not the Service is advertised. Is this possible? From antispam at carolina.rr.com Thu Jan 9 16:14:03 2003 From: antispam at carolina.rr.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML In-Reply-To: <F9C0E31C-2414-11D7-AA9D-003065F69D4C@mac.com> Message-ID: <B17DE3C6-242F-11D7-89FE-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 03:57 PM, Jonathan Hendry wrote: > Depends. The KHTML stuff is in a framework. If the KHTML license is > like > LGPL, Omni could still sell the app. I think - I'm not an open source > license > pedant/lawyer. KHTML is LGPL. Even if KHTML were GPL, OmniGroup could still charge for OmniWeb. IANAL Now that the OmniWeb team has had more time to think about it, are you in favor of using KHTML for OmniWeb 5 or developing your own engine? From patrick at elixir.ch Thu Jan 9 16:28:08 2003 From: patrick at elixir.ch (Patrick Armbruster) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML In-Reply-To: <B17DE3C6-242F-11D7-89FE-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: <4645EB88-2431-11D7-8A8A-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> Me too want to know. :) And of course, the usual question: "Where have all the sneakypeeks gone?" Aren't there any 4.1.2 SPs available? Am Freitag, 10.01.03, um 01:08 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Michael Brewer: > Now that the OmniWeb team has had more time to think about it, are you > in favor of using KHTML for OmniWeb 5 or developing your own engine? Patrick From dailygrind at thewonderllama.com Thu Jan 9 17:55:29 2003 From: dailygrind at thewonderllama.com (Brendan Sweeney) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML In-Reply-To: <4645EB88-2431-11D7-8A8A-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> References: <B17DE3C6-242F-11D7-89FE-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> <4645EB88-2431-11D7-8A8A-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> Message-ID: <3167.140.142.107.121.1042163267.squirrel@ralph.thewonderllama.com> > And of course, the usual question: "Where have all the sneakypeeks > gone?" Aren't there any 4.1.2 SPs available? Features trickling out slowly over the entire development cycle doesn't get the "Oh Wow!" that a big release does. So in the interest of being a buisness, Omni's dammed the SP river. Then they'll release the next big version and everyone will be forced to notice it. (or so i understand) ~BS http://www.thewonderllama.com From andrew at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 9 20:02:01 2003 From: andrew at omnigroup.com (Andrew Abernathy) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML In-Reply-To: <4645EB88-2431-11D7-8A8A-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> Message-ID: <2AAA6362-2450-11D7-81A6-0003938E5328@omnigroup.com> I doubt we'll commit to a specific approach (KHTML vs our own engine) immediately. We will certainly be spending time exploring WebCore, and so far we think there is a lot of potential there, but most likely we will hold off on any specific commitments until we feel very comfortable with doing so, and that's unlikely to happen before we've done a decent amount of work around it. Also, Ken is at the expo this week, and thus has limited opportunity to play with WebCore. As for sneakypeeks, we're not currently doing the almost-daily public releases. There are a number of reasons for that; I'm not going to go into all of them, but they include things like us wanting to improve our internal QA and reduce the burden on our overworked support team, reduce the frustration on end users evaluating our sneakypeeks as finished products, and also on occasion we may integrate features that we're not willing to immediately reveal publicly for marketing reasons. That's not to say that we won't do any public testing (we will, although I don't know all the specifics yet), and I'm not in a position to say exactly what we will be doing over time, but we will be refining our release approach. Disclaimer: I don't make these decisions, so it's always possible I'll be contradicted by someone who knows better. :-) -andrew On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 04:20 PM, Patrick Armbruster wrote: > Me too want to know. :) > And of course, the usual question: "Where have all the sneakypeeks > gone?" Aren't there any 4.1.2 SPs available? > > Am Freitag, 10.01.03, um 01:08 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Michael > Brewer: > >> Now that the OmniWeb team has had more time to think about it, are you >> in favor of using KHTML for OmniWeb 5 or developing your own engine? > > Patrick > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From kmg at mac.com Thu Jan 9 20:20:02 2003 From: kmg at mac.com (Kevin Grant) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Open URL N/O/S In-Reply-To: <8AAEB39C-2411-11D7-AA43-003065E56836@schubert-it.de> Message-ID: <51055F2E-2452-11D7-B299-003065D641BC@mac.com> > Now I have three of these "Open URL with..." items in the Services > menu. I think it is time to get rid off these and replace them with a > generic "Open URL in Web Browser" Service that opens the selection in > the default browser (that would also have the additional benefit that > it would work with Mozilla, IE, iCab etc.) However, not all URLs are web sites. For example, MacTelnet has this kind of item in the Services menu, and it can open almost any kind of URL correctly, not just "telnet://". In fact, the MacTelnet version of the Open URL service is exactly what you want, because if it receives an "http://" URL it *will* use your default web browser to handle it. :) Kevin G. http://homepage.mac.com/kmg/ mailto:kevin@ieee.org From jeremy_henderson at hotmail.com Fri Jan 10 01:19:01 2003 From: jeremy_henderson at hotmail.com (jeremy henderson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OW and Keychain - newbie query! Message-ID: <F25ITl3Z28MSy2SKO200002b304@hotmail.com> Hi: As a newbie to OW and OS X, I am a bit puzzled by Keychain. Basically - I don't see any difference in the way passwords are required by websites (e.g. Hotmail etc) from what I have used on any other browser or OS. I guess I was sort of imagining that passwords get magically typed in for me, but evidently that doesn't happen. Can someone provide a quick tutorial? (I did look on the OW Help, but didn't find anything ....) cheers, Jeremy. jeremy_henderson@hotmail.com +44 (0)7740 194579 _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From matsakis at mit.edu Fri Jan 10 05:53:12 2003 From: matsakis at mit.edu (Nick Matsakis) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Open URL N/O/S In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042111022@aura.luxnet.org> References: <8AAEB39C-2411-11D7-AA43-003065E56836@schubert-it.de> <2147483647.1042111022@aura.luxnet.org> Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.50.0301100842410.1850-100000@artoo.ai.mit.edu> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Scott J. Kramer wrote: > Does anyone know what to tweak so the "Open URL in" shorcuts for > Navigator and OmniWeb don't conflict? If you're comfortable "opening packages", the edit Navigator.app/Contents/Info.plist, and remove the keyboard shortcut. This will leave the item in your services menu, but leave Omniweb with command-shift-u. Nick Matsakis From matsakis at mit.edu Fri Jan 10 06:00:01 2003 From: matsakis at mit.edu (Nick Matsakis) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML In-Reply-To: <B17DE3C6-242F-11D7-89FE-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> References: <B17DE3C6-242F-11D7-89FE-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.50.0301100852300.1850-100000@artoo.ai.mit.edu> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Michael Brewer wrote: > KHTML is LGPL. Even if KHTML were GPL, OmniGroup could still charge for > OmniWeb. IANAL Charging isn't the primary issue, here. With the GPL, derivative works have to be open source too. The LGPL is what allows Apple to release Safari without releasing its source code (which no doubt is shared in part with very many other Apple applications - for example, the bookmarks GUI). Nick Matsakis From patrick at elixir.ch Fri Jan 10 07:19:12 2003 From: patrick at elixir.ch (Patrick Armbruster) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.50.0301100852300.1850-100000@artoo.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: <33898630-24AE-11D7-89DE-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> So, basically - OmniGroup could use the KHTML source _with_ Apple's source code enhancements, as those again have been made available via the LGPL. - OmniGroup could still charge for OmniWeb as long as the changed KHTML source would again be made available via the LGPL. I think that sounds good. Am Freitag, 10.01.03, um 14:55 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Nick Matsakis: > Charging isn't the primary issue, here. With the GPL, derivative works > have to be open source too. The LGPL is what allows Apple to release > Safari without releasing its source code (which no doubt is shared in > part > with very many other Apple applications - for example, the bookmarks > GUI). Patrick From abasscube at mac.com Fri Jan 10 09:22:01 2003 From: abasscube at mac.com (Adam Bass) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb-l digest, Vol 1 #680 - 20 msgs In-Reply-To: <200301082003.h08K31L08598@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <20E22FE4-24C0-11D7-A30B-000393B5B0F8@mac.com> On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 03:03 PM, omniweb-l-request@omnigroup.com wrote: > >> The only things I like are bookmarks, progress bar in the URL window, >> and SPEED. (Darn its fast!) > > > How do people think Safari compares with Chimera on speed? I'm > downloading Safari now, and I use Chimera exclusively now because of > the speed, only using IE every now and then because Chimera doesn't do > auto-fill yet (the "type ahead" kind like IE does) > > Jim > I'd been using Chimera exclusively for awhile until Safari was released. It is true that for loading web pages for the first time, Safari is not quite as fast as Chimera, but it's usually pretty close. The thing that's very fast in Safari is it's caching. Going back to previous pages is overall the fastest I've seen in an OS X browser. It is usually instant, and when it isn't, it's very close. With OmniWeb, going back up to about 3 or 4 pages is completely instant, more so than Safari, but anymore than that and it gets pretty slow. Safari maintains near-instant speed for seemingly infinite pages. The main reason I switched from OmniWeb to Chimera awhile back was because I had just had enough of OmniWeb's speed and lack of standards compliance. I think it's a good browser with a nice interface and great features, but because Chimera worked with everything and was insanely fast, I decided to switch to that. I love Safari even more. It has a very nice interface; I think the brushed metal looks great. I love the integrated Snap Back and integrated Google searching (yes, I know it's easy to do with an OW shortcut, but Chimera didn't have it at all, so it's a step up from that. Pretty much the only standards compliance issue with Safari is with CSS. It works fine with all basic CSS, just not with more complicated CSS elements, and it's definitely better than OW's CSS support. I think it'd be great if OmniGroup decided to use the KHTML rendering engine for OW. Once OW is faster and has near-perfect standards compliance, I would probably use it. I love OW shortcuts, but I also love Snapback and the bookmark system in Safari. One thing's for sure, I'm never even looking at IE again! :) Adam From support at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 10 09:36:01 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott - Omni Support) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Open URL N/O/S In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.50.0301100842410.1850-100000@artoo.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: <E3591EF4-24C1-11D7-A4B6-00039314AC2C@omnigroup.com> To change the services shortcuts for an application you can use pearSSC: <http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=15376&db=mac> Sincerely, Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 05:52 AM, Nick Matsakis wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Scott J. Kramer wrote: > >> Does anyone know what to tweak so the "Open URL in" shorcuts for >> Navigator and OmniWeb don't conflict? > > If you're comfortable "opening packages", the edit > Navigator.app/Contents/Info.plist, and remove the keyboard shortcut. > This will leave the item in your services menu, but leave Omniweb with > command-shift-u. > > Nick Matsakis From support at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 10 09:44:59 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott - Omni Support) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OW and Keychain - newbie query! In-Reply-To: <F25ITl3Z28MSy2SKO200002b304@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <BAA2AE94-24C2-11D7-A4B6-00039314AC2C@omnigroup.com> Jeremy, OmniWeb does not yet use the Keychain to store passwords for form-based login (where there are fields within the web page that you fill in). We do store passwords for servers that require HTTP Authentication where you are presented with a native dialog for entry of your username and password (provided you check the box in that dialog to have OmniWeb store the password). Sincerely, Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 01:16 AM, jeremy henderson wrote: > Hi: > > As a newbie to OW and OS X, I am a bit puzzled by Keychain. Basically > - I don't see any difference in the way passwords are required by > websites (e.g. Hotmail etc) from what I have used on any other browser > or OS. I guess I was sort of imagining that passwords get magically > typed in for me, but evidently that doesn't happen. > > Can someone provide a quick tutorial? (I did look on the OW Help, but > didn't find anything ....) > > cheers, > > Jeremy. From doug at dougbrightwell.com Fri Jan 10 09:57:33 2003 From: doug at dougbrightwell.com (Doug Brightwell) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: What does Safari mean for OmniWeb? In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.44.0301071853550.3502-100000@machop.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <BA44494F.1D0F7%doug@dougbrightwell.com> On 1/7/03 6:57 PM, "Ken Case" <kc@omnigroup.com> wrote: > This means that > we may be able to reach our compatibility and speed goals for OmniWeb much > more quickly than when we were working alone, and then return our focus to > doing what we do best: providing a rich browsing experience. Ben... I like the sound of this approach a lot and hope you guys pursue that direction. Sounds like the best of both worlds. Doug ------------------------ Doug Brightwell doug@dougbrightwell.com ------------------------ From ritch at mac.com Fri Jan 10 10:20:01 2003 From: ritch at mac.com (Tom Ritch) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OW and Keychain - newbie query! In-Reply-To: <BAA2AE94-24C2-11D7-A4B6-00039314AC2C@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <05F4A30A-24C8-11D7-847B-000393516742@mac.com> On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 09:41 AM, Scott - Omni Support wrote: > OmniWeb does not yet use the Keychain to store passwords for > form-based login (where there are fields within the web page that you > fill in). ... > On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 01:16 AM, jeremy henderson wrote: > >> Hi: >> >> As a newbie to OW and OS X, I am a bit puzzled by Keychain. Jeremy, This comment is not about Keychains. but you are new and Scott was discussing filling in forms, so you should become aware of Save Form For Autofill. Once you fill in a form, from the Browser menu choose Save Form For Autofill. The next time you open this page, to fill the form select Autofill Form from the Browser menu, and the page will be filled automatically. This saved data also works for any other form page where the fields to be filled have the same names. As you Save Form For Autofill for more and more pages, OmniWeb accumulates a database of field names whose content it remembers so filling in forms becomes easier and easier. You could use this for sensitive data such as passwords and credit card numbers, but generally that is not a good idea for security reasons. For things like addresses, customer numbers and even less significant passwords for, for example, protected web sites or free newspaper accounts, it is excellent. Tom From jonhendry at mac.com Fri Jan 10 14:21:01 2003 From: jonhendry at mac.com (Jonathan Hendry) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML In-Reply-To: <33898630-24AE-11D7-89DE-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> Message-ID: <B4A56244-24E9-11D7-AD14-003065F69D4C@mac.com> On Friday, Jan 10, 2003, at 10:14 America/New_York, Patrick Armbruster wrote: > So, basically > > - OmniGroup could use the KHTML source _with_ Apple's source code > enhancements, as those again have been made available via the LGPL. > > - OmniGroup could still charge for OmniWeb as long as the changed > KHTML source would again be made available via the LGPL. I hope that Omni just uses Apple's WebCore framework as-is, in which case they wouldn't have to do anything. This will be easier if Apple eventually moves WebCore into /System/Library/Frameworks as a standard facility. This would be preferable, because it would reduce the number of things that need to be updated. It would be a pain to have to update Apple's WebCore and also Omni's modified version. It would also save disk space and probably have vm benefits. From ddittmann at mac.com Fri Jan 10 17:12:07 2003 From: ddittmann at mac.com (Dan Dittmann) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OmniWeb 5 & KHTML In-Reply-To: <B4A56244-24E9-11D7-AD14-003065F69D4C@mac.com> Message-ID: <5220E4F9-2501-11D7-8F28-0050E4F9E02F@mac.com> Not to start any rumors but I would think WebCore will show up in a future OS update in the not so distant future. For quite a while now many developers have been asking Apple to update the Help Viewer application to include many features now available in Safari. Knowing this, I was not that surprised to see Safari released so it is probably just a matter of time. My 3 cents. On Friday, Jan 10, 2003, at 16:20 US/Central, Jonathan Hendry wrote: > I hope that Omni just uses Apple's WebCore framework as-is, in which > case they wouldn't > have to do anything. This will be easier if Apple eventually moves > WebCore into > /System/Library/Frameworks as a standard facility. > > This would be preferable, because it would reduce the number of things > that need to be > updated. It would be a pain to have to update Apple's WebCore and also > Omni's > modified version. It would also save disk space and probably have vm > benefits. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan How often do you say to yourself, "I didn't do it; so of course, it didn't get done?" From omniweb at sjk.us Fri Jan 10 19:12:02 2003 From: omniweb at sjk.us (Scott J. Kramer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Open URL N/O/S In-Reply-To: <E3591EF4-24C1-11D7-A4B6-00039314AC2C@omnigroup.com> References: <E3591EF4-24C1-11D7-A4B6-00039314AC2C@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <2147483647.1042218649@aura.luxnet.org> --On Friday, January 10, 2003 9:35 -0800 Scott - Omni Support <support@omnigroup.com> wrote: > > To change the services shortcuts for an application you can use pearSSC: > > <http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=15376&db=mac> Interesting. The single VT comment makes me a bit hesitant to try it, and running "strings" on the executable indicates it does (or attempts to do) what Nick suggests: > On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 05:52 AM, Nick Matsakis wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Scott J. Kramer wrote: >> >>> Does anyone know what to tweak so the "Open URL in" shorcuts for >>> Navigator and OmniWeb don't conflict? >> >> If you're comfortable "opening packages", the edit >> Navigator.app/Contents/Info.plist, and remove the keyboard shortcut. >> This will leave the item in your services menu, but leave Omniweb with >> command-shift-u. Hmm, though I already checked that a few releases ago, but anyway... Looks trivial to *change* the NSKeyEquivalent string: <key>NSKeyEquivalent</key> <dict> <key>default</key> <string>U</string> </dict> <key>NSMenuItem</key> <dict> <key>default</key> <string>Open URL in Navigator</string> </dict> I'll give this manual method a try. I like the ability to save/revert the Info.plist file and make note of it since I'm not completely sure what pearSCC will do. Thanks for the tips! -sjk From antispam at carolina.rr.com Sat Jan 11 08:39:01 2003 From: antispam at carolina.rr.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: OW and Keychain - newbie query! In-Reply-To: <F25ITl3Z28MSy2SKO200002b304@hotmail.com> Message-ID: <6DA4C878-2582-11D7-958B-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 04:16 AM, jeremy henderson wrote: > As a newbie to OW and OS X, I am a bit puzzled by Keychain. Basically > - I don't see any difference in the way passwords are required by > websites (e.g. Hotmail etc) from what I have used on any other browser > or OS. I guess I was sort of imagining that passwords get magically > typed in for me, but evidently that doesn't happen. This happens in Chimera. Which is why Chimera is still my official online shopping browser. OmniWeb and Safari don't have this yet. I eagerly anticipate this feature in both. It'd be nice if Safari, OmniWeb, and Chimera could all use the same Keychain entries. Rip, Mix, Burn, Fair Use -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 724 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20030111/eafbf038/attachment.bin From myrddin at primus.ca Sat Jan 11 09:50:01 2003 From: myrddin at primus.ca (Myrddin Emrys) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: A lot of opinions. Message-ID: <87DC26D1-258D-11D7-BE61-000502381501@primus.ca> (Rant Warning!) I'm sorry if everyone is over saying something about Safari but I think that this list its the perfect place. Correct me if I am wrong but this list is to pass on experiences with OmniWeb, and the best way to do that is with a point of reference, by including experiences with other browsers. The Omni team does not have the resources of Apple or Microsoft, and they only have the user to support and thank with the best product that they can and will be done with limited resources, in this case a quasi-free web browser. It's funny, I was going to make NeXT my choice of computer many moons ago, just before things went sour. I had made the choice do to mainly two things, WordPerfect and Omni products. My major point is productivity, I like to get the job properly done. Omni has always been able to provide this without the hype of large companies; however, Apple now getting back to it's Apple II roots in relation to software with there use and listening to what the user wants and sees. This whole browser mess is because of too many 'standards'. Personally, I used OmniWeb from day one with System X, but now I use Safari. Why? Chimera is still to flaky on my system, IE gives me a rash, Mozilla gives me more than I want or need, and OmniWeb seems slower on my machine over time and less compliant to the standards than I would like. (Rant over) I don't see a problem with the Omni team using khtml and charging for OmniWeb. Correct me if I am wrong, khtml is open source but the code that makes or brakes OmniWeb is the user experience or the interfacing code which is not open source. It's a huge thing writing a graphics engine with so few resources, my hat goes off to the team, and I'm impatiently waiting for the results. I know I will be impressed with results. I don't think Safari is a browser killer, as with all it's hoopla, it is still new and as with all free iApps it is IMHO just an advertisement of how easy it is to write a program in System X using it's standard frameworks. John From patrick at elixir.ch Sat Jan 11 12:32:01 2003 From: patrick at elixir.ch (Patrick Armbruster) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: A lot of opinions. In-Reply-To: <87DC26D1-258D-11D7-BE61-000502381501@primus.ca> Message-ID: <BAB52FE4-25A3-11D7-B264-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> Hmm... How so? I mean, we know that it's like that, both because OmniGroup always told us so and maybe because we've done it ourselves once or twice. But Apple does nothing like saying "You can make simple apps like Safari yourself with our developer tools!". The opposite is true, they act and think they've got some killer apps with the iApps and _are_ attracting users with them. Also, I don't think people - like myself - who posted about using the KHTML source thought badly of OW's interface. We just weren't talking about it at all, because this was about implementing either the KHTML engine or WebCore from Apple directly. The interface was clear to stay OmniGroup's OmniWeb (or rather an updated version of it). Am Samstag, 11.01.03, um 18:53 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Myrddin Emrys: > I don't think Safari is a browser killer, as with all it's hoopla, it > is still new and as with all free iApps it is IMHO just an > advertisement of how easy it is to write a program in System X using > it's standard frameworks. Patrick From eugene at anime.net Sat Jan 11 15:13:01 2003 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1041977666@aura.luxnet.org> References: <p05200f01ba41115a50ab@[192.168.0.7]> <2BC1C388-22B3-11D7-B935-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> <20030108060848.GC15198@localhost> <2147483647.1041977666@aura.luxnet.org> Message-ID: <20030111231011.GF1449@localhost> With so much attention on Safari, it's made me think of a few things that would spruce up OmniWeb. - A single click on the "lightning bolt" URL icon in the browser window toolbar selects the entire URL (faster than a triple click). - Drag a text selection of a URL into the browser window causes that window to open that URL. - A toggle enables a status bar at the bottom of the browser window that does "the normal thing" and shows a link destination, browser status, or JavaScript window.status. - Support the favicon.ico stuff. - Truncate really *long* titles of bookmarks to prevent the mega-wide OmniWeb -> Windows menu. - A Safari/playlist-like bookmark manager. Since OW does not open multiple bookmark folders simultaneously, a single window interface makes more sense. - Somehow synchronize bookmarks between OW and Safari. - Support user-provided style sheets for font and color preferences. - Add the character encoding to OW's Browser menu (the equivalent toolbar item takes up space I'd like to reclaim). - Support more aggressive caching. - New browser windows cascade should diagonally from top-left to bottom-right, like in days of old. I really dislike the current behavior because it's harder to select rearmost browser windows. It makes me prefer Mozilla-ish ugly tabbed windows. -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From omniweb at sjk.us Sat Jan 11 22:30:01 2003 From: omniweb at sjk.us (Scott J. Kramer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <20030111231011.GF1449@localhost> References: <p05200f01ba41115a50ab@[192.168.0.7]> <2BC1C388-22B3-11D7-B935-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> <20030108060848.GC15198@localhost> <2147483647.1041977666@aura.luxnet.org> <20030111231011.GF1449@localhost> Message-ID: <2147483647.1042316924@aura.luxnet.org> All smart suggestions, Eugene. I'll comment on a few... --On Saturday, January 11, 2003 17:10 -0600 Eugene Lee <eugene@anime.net> wrote: > - A toggle enables a status bar at the bottom of the browser window that > does "the normal thing" and shows a link destination, browser status, > or JavaScript window.status. I'd prefer it be optionally movable to the top of the browser window (e.g. under the page address bar) so it's still visible when I move the bottom of a window past the bottom edge of the screen. My brief experience with Safari's status bar at the bottom has made it clear it belongs at the top to fit my style of window shuffling and access. > - A Safari/playlist-like bookmark manager. Since OW does not open > multiple bookmark folders simultaneously, a single window interface > makes more sense. In the short term, please make the current bookmarks window/drawer be keyboard scrollable for consistency with every other window that has a scrollbar(!) Even after a year's use of OW I *still* dumbly attempt scrolling with <fn>-<arrow> or <command>-<arrow> keys, grrr. :-) > - Somehow synchronize bookmarks between OW and Safari. ... while preserving the notes and change data of OW bookmarks. > - Support more aggressive caching. I'm wondering how much disk caching has to do with the extraordinary speed claims being made about Safari. Some pages it accesses the first time take as long or longer to fully load and render than OW or Chimera. That's with a decent broadband connection. > - New browser windows cascade should diagonally from top-left to > bottom-right, like in days of old. I really dislike the current > behavior because it's harder to select rearmost browser windows. I agree, tho' would new windows be resized to fit within vertical screen size (and bottom-Dock constrained?) or be partially off the bottom of the screen? If the latter, it relates to my wanting the status bar at the top of windows. > It makes me prefer Mozilla-ish ugly tabbed windows. For an alternative, check out curmi's mockup in: <http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=16b5db05d4d45da3fa8c1d462faf7814 &threadid=125205&perpage=50&highlight=curmi&pagenumber=3> ... which I found via the "Better than tabs..." thread in: <http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?128@122.BpwVaCMAgqm.4@.3bbdc1f6> Interesting topic. One new item to add: - Add "Open Selection With" menu, similiar to Safari's "Open Page With" in the Debug menu and current "Open URL in <browser>" in the Services menu, but more generalized. -sjk From aethr at earthlink.net Sun Jan 12 01:23:01 2003 From: aethr at earthlink.net (Allen Ethridge) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Fun with multiple browsers Message-ID: <55B89DA8-260F-11D7-9B7F-00306540D7B4@earthlink.net> OmniWeb doesn't work correctly with Barnes & Noble. Safari and IE work better, but not correctly. And, of course, each is broken in a different way. How many web browsers do I need to keep around? Allen From patrick at elixir.ch Sun Jan 12 02:48:01 2003 From: patrick at elixir.ch (Patrick Armbruster) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <20030111231011.GF1449@localhost> Message-ID: <47498A20-261B-11D7-B264-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> This is Apple Magic, guys... I _have_ to answer that one. Read below the quote: Am Sonntag, 12.01.03, um 00:10 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Eugene Lee: > - Support the favicon.ico stuff. I am discussing browsers and sites and Macs all the time on macosx.com, at the office and on icity.net.tc. And the favicons, although supported in Chimera and Communicator never were a subject. Most of those people (like 80%) were using Chimera for months now. Then: Boom. Three days after Safari builds were out, people started having favicons on their websites. I also wanted them for my site. Not because the others did, because of Safari. favicons always were, well, unsexy. They made not much sense, in a way. But how Apple implemented them, they suddenly made much, much more sense. Sites stick out in the history list and in your bookmark list, you can visually search for entries (rather, you do that without thinking). The request for this feature by Eugene Lee is another drop on that feeling I had. It just makes sense... Patrick From ldeck at tpg.com.au Sun Jan 12 14:06:02 2003 From: ldeck at tpg.com.au (Lachlan Deck) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <200301122004.h0CK4iL17910@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <B7D7A3B2-2679-11D7-8065-0005025E2371@tpg.com.au> Hi there, > Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:10:11 -0600 > From: Eugene Lee <eugene@anime.net> > > - New browser windows cascade should diagonally from top-left to > bottom-right, like in days of old. I really dislike the current > behavior because it's harder to select rearmost browser windows. > It makes me prefer Mozilla-ish ugly tabbed windows. I believe that this is actually possible with OW, if I'm not mistaken. I think it requires a defaults write on the command line. You might want to check the list archives... Btw, I like the fact that it doesn't cascade automatically - because when you open 20 odd windows, it is very annoying to have them cascade below the visual point (i.e., like in IE when they get smaller, arghh). > -- > Eugene Lee > eugene@anime.net with regards, -- Lachlan Deck ldeck@tpg.com.au From sanguish at digifix.com Sun Jan 12 20:48:01 2003 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Fun with multiple browsers In-Reply-To: <55B89DA8-260F-11D7-9B7F-00306540D7B4@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <0A69F7D5-26B2-11D7-9E62-003065C12394@digifix.com> On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 04:22 AM, Allen Ethridge wrote: > OmniWeb doesn't work correctly with Barnes & Noble. Safari and IE > work better, but not correctly. And, of course, each is broken in a > different way. How many web browsers do I need to keep around? > > how does it not work correctly with BN? I've ordered dozens and dozens of books through them using OW... From support at omnigroup.com Mon Jan 13 01:00:02 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott M.) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <20030111231011.GF1449@localhost> Message-ID: <60B9FD54-26D5-11D7-B173-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Eugene Lee wrote: > With so much attention on Safari, it's made me think of a few things > that would spruce up OmniWeb. > > - A single click on the "lightning bolt" URL icon in the browser window > toolbar selects the entire URL (faster than a triple click). > > - Drag a text selection of a URL into the browser window causes that > window to open that URL. > > - A toggle enables a status bar at the bottom of the browser window > that > does "the normal thing" and shows a link destination, browser status, > or JavaScript window.status. Requests noted in our bug database. > - Support the favicon.ico stuff. This is coming. > - Truncate really *long* titles of bookmarks to prevent the mega-wide > OmniWeb -> Windows menu. I have looked into this before and it seems that when you're using the standard Window menu that the system provides (as we are) this is not possible. I will re-visit this issue and see if there isn't something we can do here. > - A Safari/playlist-like bookmark manager. Since OW does not open > multiple bookmark folders simultaneously, a single window interface > makes more sense. > > - Somehow synchronize bookmarks between OW and Safari. > > - Support user-provided style sheets for font and color preferences. > > - Add the character encoding to OW's Browser menu (the equivalent > toolbar item takes up space I'd like to reclaim). All noted, thanks. > - Support more aggressive caching. This is coming. > - New browser windows cascade should diagonally from top-left to > bottom-right, like in days of old. I really dislike the current > behavior because it's harder to select rearmost browser windows. > It makes me prefer Mozilla-ish ugly tabbed windows. OmniWeb currently does this. We open the first window, then cascade down and to the right. When we reach the bottom of the screen (or the top of the dock) we start at the top again, and slightly to the right. OmniWeb does not do so well at maintaining a nice stack when some windows in the stack have been closed but this is something that we hope to improve upon. The default that Lachlan mentioned is OAWindowCascadeDisabled which disables cascading altogether. Perhaps you modified this? The following Help URL lists all of OmniWeb's defaults: omniweb:/Help/Topics/DefaultsList.html If you have disabled window cascading simply type the following at the command prompt in a Terminal window: defaults remove com.omnigroup.OmniWeb OAWindowCascadeDisabled Sincerely, Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group From jeremy_henderson at hotmail.com Mon Jan 13 01:37:13 2003 From: jeremy_henderson at hotmail.com (jeremy henderson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced features we don't want Message-ID: <F27EVqr4YFM8De4wk2U00000770@hotmail.com> >On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Eugene Lee wrote: > >>With so much attention on Safari, it's made me think of a few things >>that would spruce up OmniWeb. How about the "Option-Download" "PLEASE DELETE MY HOME DIRECTORY" option? :-) Or the "I don't want to print anything ever again so please delete /tmp on install" option? J. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From eugene at anime.net Mon Jan 13 02:01:02 2003 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <60B9FD54-26D5-11D7-B173-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> References: <20030111231011.GF1449@localhost> <60B9FD54-26D5-11D7-B173-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <20030113095823.GA13909@localhost> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:59:52AM -0800, Scott M. wrote: : : On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Eugene Lee wrote: : > : >- Truncate really *long* titles of bookmarks to prevent the mega-wide : > OmniWeb -> Windows menu. : : I have looked into this before and it seems that when you're using the : standard Window menu that the system provides (as we are) this is not : possible. I will re-visit this issue and see if there isn't something : we can do here. Maybe for each page, create a truncated/filtered title that is used for the Window menu instead of the actual title? Or maybe Apple is using some undocumented API? :-) : >- New browser windows cascade should diagonally from top-left to : > bottom-right, like in days of old. [...] : OmniWeb currently does this. [...] : The default that Lachlan mentioned is OAWindowCascadeDisabled which : disables cascading altogether. Perhaps you modified this? The OAWindowCascadeDisabled key was *missing* on my box. I don't know how. I went ahead and recreated the key with a boolean value of "No". All fixed. Much better. Thank you Scott (and Lachlan). And at least I'm not screaming for tabbed browsing. ;-) -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From ardcat at mac.com Mon Jan 13 07:26:00 2003 From: ardcat at mac.com (ard) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: default browser Message-ID: <19AC7D93-270B-11D7-8036-00039382E96C@mac.com> After installing Safari, it will become your default browser, if your preference was set for IE. My default browser was set for OmniWeb, and it remained so. Curious, and pleased. I guess with 10.2.3 the system preference issues for the default browser are dead. ard From d0 at earthlink.net Mon Jan 13 12:12:09 2003 From: d0 at earthlink.net (David Kurtz) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Fun with multiple browsers In-Reply-To: <55B89DA8-260F-11D7-9B7F-00306540D7B4@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <r01050400-1023-CD14AB1B273111D7B5E9003065C7D828@[10.1.218.146]> On 1/12/03 at 3:22, Allen Ethridge wrote: >OmniWeb doesn't work correctly with Barnes & Noble. Safari and IE work >better, but not correctly. And, of course, each is broken in a >different way. How many web browsers do I need to keep around? > > Allen Just one: IE6/PC. Or, write to the designers of the site and ask them to adhere to W3C standards. Ask the same of your favorite browser makers. That's the only way this situation will improve. -- David A. Kurtz <http://home.earthlink.net/~d0/radio/> .. ... ..... ....... ........... ............. From myrddin at primus.ca Mon Jan 13 12:23:31 2003 From: myrddin at primus.ca (Myrddin Emrys) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: A lot of opinions. In-Reply-To: <200301122004.h0CK4rL17946@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <05AFA440-2733-11D7-8C32-000502381501@primus.ca> On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 15:04 Canada/Eastern, Patrick Armbruster wrote: > Hmm... How so? I mean, we know that it's like that, both because > OmniGroup always told us so and maybe because we've done it ourselves > once or twice. But Apple does nothing like saying "You can make simple > apps like Safari yourself with our developer tools!". The opposite is > true, they act and think they've got some killer apps with the iApps > and _are_ attracting users with them. > > Also, I don't think people - like myself - who posted about using the > KHTML source thought badly of OW's interface. We just weren't talking > about it at all, because this was about implementing either the KHTML > engine or WebCore from Apple directly. The interface was clear to stay > OmniGroup's OmniWeb (or rather an updated version of it). > I see your point that those who have coded apps would definitely know the reasons behind iApps but not everyone in the list or in the community has a clue. A few on the list were comparing the GUI of Safari and OmniWeb, I should of phrased the both statements better, for that I apologize. Yes, Apple is using a two pronged attack, one promotion for those in the know and one to stimulate use of their products. Standards are the real enemy of the paradigms that exist in the industry, and promoting standard tool kits is a win-win situation for both sides of the 'user' coin. Again, I support OmniGroup's decision to utilize the khtml engine, and I look forward to using a real and productive web browser. From dhampson at pullman.com Mon Jan 13 12:33:43 2003 From: dhampson at pullman.com (David Hampson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Fun with multiple browsers In-Reply-To: <r01050400-1023-CD14AB1B273111D7B5E9003065C7D828@[10.1.218.146]> Message-ID: <CD8C8709-2734-11D7-96D2-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 12:01 PM, David Kurtz wrote: > On 1/12/03 at 3:22, Allen Ethridge wrote: > >> OmniWeb doesn't work correctly with Barnes & Noble. Safari and IE >> work >> better, but not correctly. And, of course, each is broken in a >> different way. How many web browsers do I need to keep around? >> >> Allen > > > Just one: IE6/PC. > > Or, write to the designers of the site and ask them to adhere to W3C > standards. > Ask the same of your favorite browser makers. That's the only way this > situation will improve. > > Don't forget, if you do contact the web designer, include this url: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww,badwebsite.com They can probably just click on the link, and the validator will show them how screwed up their code is. -Dave There are two ways to do great mathematics. The first way is to be smarter than everybody else. The second way is to be stupider than everybody else -- but persistent. Raoul Bott From support at omnigroup.com Mon Jan 13 12:45:30 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott M.) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <20030113095823.GA13909@localhost> Message-ID: <6939E874-2735-11D7-AAA6-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 01:58 AM, Eugene Lee wrote: > : >- New browser windows cascade should diagonally from top-left to > : > bottom-right, like in days of old. > [...] > : OmniWeb currently does this. > [...] > : The default that Lachlan mentioned is OAWindowCascadeDisabled which > : disables cascading altogether. Perhaps you modified this? > > The OAWindowCascadeDisabled key was *missing* on my box. I don't know > how. I went ahead and recreated the key with a boolean value of "No". > All fixed. Much better. Thank you Scott (and Lachlan). Hmmm, that's strange. The key should not be present until you have modified it, meaning OmniWeb will use it's default value of NO. Try following my previous instructions for removing the key and see if the cascading behavior remains. Sincerely, Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group From support at omnigroup.com Mon Jan 13 12:46:35 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott M.) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: A lot of opinions. In-Reply-To: <05AFA440-2733-11D7-8C32-000502381501@primus.ca> Message-ID: <3525ECCC-2736-11D7-AAA6-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 12:10 PM, Myrddin Emrys wrote: > Again, I support OmniGroup's decision to utilize the khtml engine, and > I look forward to using a real and productive web browser. Just to be clear: We have not made a decision about this yet but we are still investigating the possibility. There are advantages (like a quicker path to better standards compliance) and disadvantages (like the possibility that we lose some multithreadedness and dual processor support) that we will have to carefully weigh before making our decision. Sincerely, Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group From redington at mac.com Mon Jan 13 13:11:29 2003 From: redington at mac.com (K. Redington) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Standards might filter into the office In-Reply-To: <05AFA440-2733-11D7-8C32-000502381501@primus.ca> Message-ID: <01D60B59-273B-11D7-A6F2-00306599F422@mac.com> Just some food for thought. It is great to see Apple and the Mac Browser community enforce and push the beauty of open standards for the end user and developer. Apple and others have stumbled onto the way to get open standards out there and creating true competition in the market. I have never heard so many people (end users) talk about open standards and easy application/OS integration until this year. Technology foundations like Rendevous, WebCore, XML, etc. are going to really change the Mac market, who knows how it will start to change the PC market as a whole. When OmniGroup integrates WebCore they will quickly narrow functionality differences with the rest of their market, yet retain and enhance what makes OW the best solution for many on this list. Look at the .rtf base used in some apps on OS X including the easy export of many of Omni's App docs to .rtf Just think at how quickly OS X is growing due to the open standards that the web and networks embrace, I personally think the productivity apps are finally going to start growing in content and usefulness for a change. Thanks, OmniGroup I look forward to seeing how you shape our future "OmniWeb" and other Omni Apps. Kevin Redington Anyone else care to comment on the exciting changes in store for Web and Productivity feel free to email off list. From jakerobb at mac.com Mon Jan 13 13:20:22 2003 From: jakerobb at mac.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: A lot of opinions. In-Reply-To: <3525ECCC-2736-11D7-AAA6-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <A6A7NHWV9593OLMJYCA6ZVQZV1YTP8.3e232a98@xplaptop> 1/13/2003 3:33:00 PM, "Scott M." <support@omnigroup.com> wrote: >Just to be clear: We have not made a decision about this yet but we >are still investigating the possibility. There are advantages (like a >quicker path to better standards compliance) and disadvantages (like >the possibility that we lose some multithreadedness and dual processor >support) that we will have to carefully weigh before making our >decision. I think it would be neat if Omni posted a complete list of such advantages and disadvantages (as they see it, of course) to the list. Numerous advantages arise here: 1. Once Omni decides, it allows us to very easily choose which browser we like best. 2. Users can provide feedback regarding which items we feel are important 3. Some enterprising user may know a way around something originally seen as a disadvantage 4. In the "two heads are better than one" sense, we can be more sure that both lists are complete. -Jake From eugene at anime.net Mon Jan 13 15:30:01 2003 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <6939E874-2735-11D7-AAA6-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> References: <20030113095823.GA13909@localhost> <6939E874-2735-11D7-AAA6-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <20030113232854.GG13909@localhost> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:27:18PM -0800, Scott M. wrote: : : On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 01:58 AM, Eugene Lee wrote: : > : >The OAWindowCascadeDisabled key was *missing* on my box. I don't know : >how. I went ahead and recreated the key with a boolean value of "No". : >All fixed. Much better. Thank you Scott (and Lachlan). : : Hmmm, that's strange. The key should not be present until you have : modified it, meaning OmniWeb will use it's default value of NO. Try : following my previous instructions for removing the key and see if the : cascading behavior remains. Quit OW, removed OAWindowCascadeDisabled, restarted OW, still works (i.e. windows cascade as if I did a "OAWindowCascadeDisabled -bool NO") I don't know, but that's okay. -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From stevos at aquasition.net Mon Jan 13 18:08:00 2003 From: stevos at aquasition.net (Stevos) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Site troubles Message-ID: <EDFD13EE-2764-11D7-8B1B-0003935A4FC0@aquasition.net> My new site www.aquasition.net is written in CSS2 and HTML. I need it to load in Omniweb as well. How should I go about this? -Stevos From isenegger at mac.com Mon Jan 13 20:30:01 2003 From: isenegger at mac.com (Ben Isenegger) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <200301132015.h0DKFdL17378@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <C78A01C4-2778-11D7-A0D8-000393884DAA@mac.com> On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Eugene Lee wrote: <snip> > - A toggle enables a status bar at the bottom of the browser window > that > does "the normal thing" and shows a link destination, browser status, > or JavaScript window.status. Okay, here's some of my like/hate things about OW and Safari: I like that OW shows a status bar at the bottom of the browser window that shows the page elements as they load, but then disappears when the page has loaded (At least, this is how I think it should work, but in practise the status bar disappears well before the page has finished loading). This gives as much screen real estate to the *content* as possible (sounds like Steve Jobs describing Safari!) > - Somehow synchronize bookmarks between OW and Safari. It would be nice to see Apple provide a central repository of bookmarks that any app can access and modify (password protected, though, and Keychain aware). > - New browser windows cascade should diagonally from top-left to > bottom-right, like in days of old. I really dislike the current > behavior because it's harder to select rearmost browser windows. > It makes me prefer Mozilla-ish ugly tabbed windows. As Scott noted, this can be changed by modifying the defaults thingo. I have modified mine such that there is no cascading. I like this behaviour. I hate cascading windows! CMD+~ allows window cycling, so there's no problem with windows on top of each other. I'm not all that keen on tabbed browsing, except that it saves CPU cycles. I'd like to see a quasi-tabbed browser feature in OW, much like Preview shows multiple pages in a drawer to the left or right (someone did a mockup of this recently). Or perhaps OmniGroup will blow us away with a super elegant solution to tabbed browsing! I love OW's ability to block images loading from advertising sites (or any site I specify, with wildcards!) I would like to see OW support Option+MouseWheelScrolling to scroll horizontally (for those of us with multi-button/wheel mouses). Safari supports this already. Regards Ben From support at omnigroup.com Mon Jan 13 23:38:52 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott M.) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:50 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <C78A01C4-2778-11D7-A0D8-000393884DAA@mac.com> Message-ID: <70370470-2792-11D7-AAA6-000A27914A8A@omnigroup.com> On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 08:29 PM, Ben Isenegger wrote: > I would like to see OW support Option+MouseWheelScrolling to scroll > horizontally (for those of us with multi-button/wheel mouses). Safari > supports this already. This is something that Apple added to 10.2 but our applications do not yet support it. We will correct this for a future release. (BTW, the modifier is shift to scroll horizontally.) Sincerely, Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group From jimwick at charter.net Tue Jan 14 12:40:05 2003 From: jimwick at charter.net (Jim Wickman) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <200301142010.h0EKAlL13315@slowbro.omnigroup.com> References: <200301142010.h0EKAlL13315@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <p05200f0fba4a23ece157@[10.0.1.3]> >> - Somehow synchronize bookmarks between OW and Safari. > > It would be nice to see Apple provide a central repository of bookmarks > that any app can access and modify (password protected, though, and > Keychain aware). That's already available, and has been for some time -- URL Manager Pro. No need for Apple to do anything but make Safari shared-menus-capable. Let's not ask Apple to wipe out supportive developers. --------------------- Jim Wickman - - - Pasco, WA There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't. From paulbuckley at comcast.net Tue Jan 14 14:29:12 2003 From: paulbuckley at comcast.net (Paul Buckley) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: just because Message-ID: <28B1B446-280E-11D7-983E-003065C1F108@comcast.net> I just wanted to mention how much I like it that I can select and drag things from an OW window without it becoming front, which is unlike Safari and Mail and other Apple apps. One of the many little things that OG does better. From ldeck at tpg.com.au Tue Jan 14 16:09:04 2003 From: ldeck at tpg.com.au (Lachlan Deck) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: A lot of opinions. In-Reply-To: <200301142010.h0EKAYL13283@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <3AFC5E42-281D-11D7-8065-0005025E2371@tpg.com.au> Hi there, On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 07:10 AM, omniweb-l- request@omnigroup.com wrote: > From: Jake Robb <jakerobb@mac.com> > Subject: Re: A lot of opinions. > > I think it would be neat if Omni posted a complete list of such > advantages and disadvantages (as they see it, of course) to the list. > Numerous advantages arise here: Hmmm - I don't see this happening. Decisions are made by OmniWeb. i.e., their decisions are not opensource. It would be better for them to submit that they are confident of their future than to give people a complete breakdown of the plus/minus decisions. They are a business after all - and whatever they make publicly available needs to be in their best interest. > 1. Once Omni decides, it allows us to very easily choose which browser > we like best. You can do this through your use of the browser. > 2. Users can provide feedback regarding which items we feel are > important Many items that they will discuss will have no bearing on the perceived user experience (this is programming issues, not UI issues) - and thus many topics would require deep architectural understanding. Thus, this would be a waste of their time. > 3. Some enterprising user may know a way around something originally > seen as a disadvantage I'm confident that OmniGroup has employed competent people. They are not discussing things that they don't understand in other words. > 4. In the "two heads are better than one" sense, we can be more sure > that both lists are complete. Again, this is the job of the competent *developers* employed at the OmniGroup. User wishes, on the other hand, are good forms of feedback for the OmniGroup - but *how* they achieve those wishes (and if they decide not to do some) are issues for them... with regards, -- Lachlan Deck ldeck@tpg.com.au From ldeck at tpg.com.au Wed Jan 15 15:29:02 2003 From: ldeck at tpg.com.au (Lachlan Deck) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <200301152001.h0FK1pL13253@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <2B42AD7A-28E1-11D7-8065-0005025E2371@tpg.com.au> Hi there, On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 07:01 AM, omniweb-l- request@omnigroup.com wrote: > From: Jim Wickman <jimwick@charter.net> > >> It would be nice to see Apple provide a central repository of >> bookmarks >> that any app can access and modify (password protected, though, and >> Keychain aware). > > That's already available, and has been for some time -- URL Manager > Pro. No need for Apple to do anything but make Safari > shared-menus-capable. > > Let's not ask Apple to wipe out supportive developers. Hmm, there's certainly a toss up here. My thinking is that anything to do with Basic File Management should be provided by the OS *without* an extra fee. URL's are similar in nature to entries in your Address Book which is available for developers to tap into and offer further features. It is because of the fact that URLs haven't been standardised in the OS that each browser maintains its own database of them which is silly. Browser manufacturers have got better things to do with their time than reinvent the wheel - and users have got better things to do with their time than import / export, maintain bookmarks for different apps. We don't, as you say, want to wipe out supportive developers. However the OS will be much better when it is properly integrated allowing developers to offer other great products that further enhance the experience. with regards, -- Lachlan Deck ldeck@tpg.com.au From brendan at peacedividend.com Thu Jan 16 13:18:56 2003 From: brendan at peacedividend.com (Brendan Donohoe) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <200301162007.h0GK7fL10252@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <52454DC4-2996-11D7-82A2-00039387363C@peacedividend.com> On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Lachlan Deck <ldeck@tpg.com.au> wrote: >>> It would be nice to see Apple provide a central repository of >>> bookmarks >>> that any app can access and modify (password protected, though, and >>> Keychain aware). >> >> That's already available, and has been for some time -- URL Manager >> Pro. No need for Apple to do anything but make Safari >> shared-menus-capable. >> >> Let's not ask Apple to wipe out supportive developers. > > My thinking is that anything to do with Basic File Management should be > provided by the OS *without* an extra fee. URL's are similar in nature > to entries in your Address Book which is available for developers to > tap > into and offer further features. I have to agree with Lachlan. Apple's own Newton was a fantastic example of how such practices can be hugely beneficial to users and developers alike. In the Newton, there were central databases of information which was shared between all apps. Addresses, calendars, etc. were all part of the same soup. Third party developers would simply put different interfaces on the same data set, or when necessary, extend the data in useful ways by adding additional tags to the central repository. The end result was a very rich experience where there was no need to import or export or synchronize, and yet there were plenty of completely different applications for similar tasks to suit any need. I think Palm has similar features, but they're nowhere near as pervasive as in the Newton. Apple has started down the right path with the address book. I think bookmarks easily qualify for the same treatment. The tricky part is getting developers to buy in and figure out how to adapt their software. For OmniWeb, the benefits of an extensible system-wide bookmarks file are pretty clear. For a product like URL Manager Pro, it's up to the developer to figure out how to take advantage of an improved system. URL Manager Pro has lots of cool features that no browser bookmark manager has. It is always the peril of a developer of add-on software that the thing they are adding on to will eventually absorb their functionality, if it's a good idea. Photoshop plug-in developers face this dilemma with each new Photoshop. Since Conflict Catcher already existed, should Apple never have developed Extensions Manager? Or, for that matter, since Audion *and* Sound Jam already existed, should Apple passed on purchasing Sound Jam and turning it into iTunes? It's not about putting people out of business; it's about building a better system that will meet the needs of more people out of the box. (And given this mailing list, it should be obvious that these are Apple's intentions: if they wanted to put other web browsers out of business with Safari, they would not have released WebCore.) Brendan From eaccounts at valaquenta.com Thu Jan 16 13:33:26 2003 From: eaccounts at valaquenta.com (eaccounts@valaquenta.com) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: OmniWeb-l digest, Vol 1 #688 - 1 msg In-Reply-To: <200301162007.h0GK7iL10264@slowbro.omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0301161513270.27461-100000@drake.dragonwind.net> > Browser manufacturers have got better > things to do with their time than reinvent the wheel - and users have > got better things to do with their time than import / export, maintain > bookmarks for different apps. We can certainly hope that given the opportunity to do so browser developers would get on board with this idea, but I have to believe that some of them see the relative dificulty of moving bookmarks/favourites from one browser to another as one of the tools in their aresnal for keeping their users where they are. Maybe if this sort of integration were provided at the base level of the operating system some developers would make use of it. Unfortunately I think that the only ones who would are the people behind Safari (obviously), Chimera and OmniWeb. I suspect that Microsoft and Netscape wouldn't even bother. -- Aaron G. Peabody From mwy.mwyacobucci at verizon.net Thu Jan 16 16:00:28 2003 From: mwy.mwyacobucci at verizon.net (Margaret Yacobucci) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Managing bookmarks In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0301161513270.27461-100000@drake.dragonwind.net> Message-ID: <A47B6B6A-29AC-11D7-B652-000393696EEC@verizon.net> On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 04:18 PM, this message arrived in my mailbox: >> Browser manufacturers have got better >> things to do with their time than reinvent the wheel - and users have >> got better things to do with their time than import / export, maintain >> bookmarks for different apps. I use URL Manager Pro which loads as a login item. Clicking on the icon in the dock brings up its menu, and I just choose the bookmark file and then the bookmark I want. This works with all the browsers I have installed: OmniWeb, Safari, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, iCab, Chimera. I do not use Internet Explorer. I like this method because, no matter which browser I'm using, the bookmark-selecting procedure and the bookmarks are the same. ________________________________ Margaret Yacobucci myacobucci@mac.com G4 iMac/800, 512 RAM, OS X.2.3 From dailygrind at thewonderllama.com Thu Jan 16 18:11:01 2003 From: dailygrind at thewonderllama.com (Brendan Sweeney) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <52454DC4-2996-11D7-82A2-00039387363C@peacedividend.com> References: <200301162007.h0GK7fL10252@slowbro.omnigroup.com> <52454DC4-2996-11D7-82A2-00039387363C@peacedividend.com> Message-ID: <3272.140.142.107.121.1042769570.squirrel@ralph.thewonderllama.com> >The end result was a very rich experience > where there was no need to import or export or synchronize, and yet > there were plenty of completely different applications for similar > tasks to suit any need. > Brendan How would you manage permissions though? I don't want some cheesey shareware app munging all my bookmarks, and I don't think the user experience would be improved if I found "Microsoft releases Blahblah x.2" added to all my calendars. It seems you should need to give an app specific permission to read and specific permission to write to these shared databases. ~BS From brendan at peacedividend.com Thu Jan 16 18:46:02 2003 From: brendan at peacedividend.com (Brendan Donohoe) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <3272.140.142.107.121.1042769570.squirrel@ralph.thewonderllama.com> Message-ID: <AD0E1718-29C5-11D7-82A2-00039387363C@peacedividend.com> On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 06:12 PM, Brendan Sweeney wrote: >> The end result was a very rich experience >> where there was no need to import or export or synchronize, and yet >> there were plenty of completely different applications for similar >> tasks to suit any need. > > How would you manage permissions though? I don't want some cheesey > shareware app munging all my bookmarks, and I don't think the user > experience would be improved if I found "Microsoft releases Blahblah > x.2" > added to all my calendars. It seems you should need to give an app > specific permission to read and specific permission to write to these > shared databases. That's an issue of trust, not of functionality. On the Newton, it was rarely (if ever) a problem that all apps had access to the same data because the file format was robust and designed for easy extensibility. If a "cheesy shareware app" needed to add something extra to the address book, it could do so without touching any of the "standard" data. On the other hand, if you don't trust an app to touch your data, what good is it? I'd much rather have an application which is convenient to me than to have a permanent set of hoops to jump through just to keep my data protected. I have backups for that. In fact, one of the primary reasons for Newton's failure and Palm's success was exactly the same principle: although the Newton was beautiful as a closed system, it's synchronization with the desktop was not seamless. Palm solved that by making one button synchronization to any number of other apps. The downside, of course, is that you need a translator for each pair of apps you want to synchronize. An even *better* solution would be to have a common database that all apps talk to directly. Then synchronization is entirely seamless and invisible (and indeed, the system itself that much more powerful) because everyone speaks the same language. Brendan From sanguish at digifix.com Fri Jan 17 00:34:01 2003 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <3272.140.142.107.121.1042769570.squirrel@ralph.thewonderllama.com> Message-ID: <F6C5CBF1-29F5-11D7-B1CE-003065C77D64@digifix.com> On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 09:12 PM, Brendan Sweeney wrote: >> The end result was a very rich experience >> where there was no need to import or export or synchronize, and yet >> there were plenty of completely different applications for similar >> tasks to suit any need. >> Brendan > > How would you manage permissions though? I don't want some cheesey > shareware app munging all my bookmarks, and I don't think the user > experience would be improved if I found "Microsoft releases Blahblah > x.2" > added to all my calendars. It seems you should need to give an app > specific permission to read and specific permission to write to these > shared databases. > Nothing prevents those same things from happening today, except that it's more of a hassle to do, since there are 3-5 competing formats for bookmarks. From antispam at carolina.rr.com Fri Jan 17 10:04:03 2003 From: antispam at carolina.rr.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: just because In-Reply-To: <28B1B446-280E-11D7-983E-003065C1F108@comcast.net> Message-ID: <48775A46-2A44-11D7-AE60-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 05:18 PM, Paul Buckley wrote: > I just wanted to mention how much I like it that I can select and drag > things from an OW window without it becoming front, which is unlike > Safari and Mail and other Apple apps. One of the many little things > that OG does better. Yes, and OmniWeb actually drags the images themselves instead of the URL of the image. From antispam at carolina.rr.com Fri Jan 17 10:14:48 2003 From: antispam at carolina.rr.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <2B42AD7A-28E1-11D7-8065-0005025E2371@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <A54DC51A-2A44-11D7-AE60-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 06:29 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote: > My thinking is that anything to do with Basic File Management should > be provided by the OS *without* an extra fee. URL's are similar in > nature to entries in your Address Book which is available for > developers to tap into and offer further features. It is because of > the fact that URLs haven't been standardised in the OS that each > browser maintains its own database of them which is silly. I agree, however, I don't want Apple to work on this until they get a BFS style filesystem in place. Thankfully they hired the guy behind BeOS' filesystem some time ago. From antispam at carolina.rr.com Fri Jan 17 10:16:38 2003 From: antispam at carolina.rr.com (Michael Brewer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1042316924@aura.luxnet.org> Message-ID: <B532AF64-2A40-11D7-AE60-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 01:28 AM, Scott J. Kramer wrote: > I'd prefer it be optionally movable to the top of the browser window > (e.g. under the page address bar) so it's still visible when I move > the bottom of a window past the bottom edge of the screen. My brief > experience with Safari's status bar at the bottom has made it clear > it belongs at the top to fit my style of window shuffling and access. Hear, hear. It also seems to be something that should be in the HIG. Finder and Mail both have their status bars at the top of the window. I'm surprised to see Safari's status bar at the bottom of the window. Actually, isn't the fact that only the horizontal scroll bar should be at the bottom of the window in the HIG? I think maybe I'll submit a bug through Safari and hope OmniGroup fixes this too (I do like their auto-show, though). From rpeskin at rlpcon.com Fri Jan 17 11:06:31 2003 From: rpeskin at rlpcon.com (Richard L. Peskin) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari and OW Message-ID: <1A35D895-2A4D-11D7-8B6F-000393639B02@rlpcon.com> How will the existence of Safari affect the plans for OW 5? Does Safari pose a threat to the continuation of OW? --dick peskin Richard L. Peskin, RLP Consulting, Londonderry, VT http://www.rlpcon.com http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/~peskin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 291 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20030117/0aaddfa7/attachment.bin From ritch at mac.com Fri Jan 17 19:20:28 2003 From: ritch at mac.com (Tom Ritch) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: no click-through to Downloads Message-ID: <526FB682-2A90-11D7-9BB5-000393516742@mac.com> An OmniWeb feature I would like to see removed is the Downloads window receiving and processing clicks when it is not in front. For other windows this action may be a benefit, but more than once pass-through clicks have led me to accidentally deleted a download. When Downloads is not the Front Window, it is at least partially obscured. This makes it too easy to click Abandon Download when all I want is bring the Downloads window to the front. For long or difficult downloads the Abandon Download remains functional for a longer time, so the likelihood of encountering this problem increases as the significance of the problem increases. Tom From support at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 17 20:42:56 2003 From: support at omnigroup.com (Scott M) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: no click-through to Downloads In-Reply-To: <526FB682-2A90-11D7-9BB5-000393516742@mac.com> Message-ID: <261B34F6-2A9F-11D7-A557-000A27B51974@omnigroup.com> Tom, Thanks for your mail. I have added your message to the bug report we have in our database for this and we will change the behavior of this for a future version of OmniWeb. Sincerely, Scott Support Engineer The Omni Group On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 06:55 PM, Tom Ritch wrote: > An OmniWeb feature I would like to see removed is the Downloads window > receiving and processing clicks when it is not in front. For other > windows this action may be a benefit, but more than once pass-through > clicks have led me to accidentally deleted a download. When Downloads > is not the Front Window, it is at least partially obscured. This > makes it too easy to click Abandon Download when all I want is bring > the Downloads window to the front. For long or difficult downloads > the Abandon Download remains functional for a longer time, so the > likelihood of encountering this problem increases as the significance > of the problem increases. > > Tom From list-omnigroup at fsck.net Sat Jan 18 05:36:01 2003 From: list-omnigroup at fsck.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari and OW In-Reply-To: <1A35D895-2A4D-11D7-8B6F-000393639B02@rlpcon.com> References: <1A35D895-2A4D-11D7-8B6F-000393639B02@rlpcon.com> Message-ID: <20030118133532.GE23109@localhost> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 01:54:27PM -0500, Richard L. Peskin wrote: : : How will the existence of Safari affect the plans for OW 5? : Does Safari pose a threat to the continuation of OW? WebCore and JavaScriptCore gives OS X developers more options. And OS X developers such as The Omni Group like more options. Ken Case has already responded to Safari in a positive way: http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/archive/omniweb-l/2003-January/009160.html -- Eugene Lee eugene@fsck.net From gelfling at syd.eastlink.ca Sat Jan 18 06:59:01 2003 From: gelfling at syd.eastlink.ca (John A. Ardelli) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: OmniWeb In-Reply-To: <list-301122108@mail.maclaunch.com> Message-ID: <4F5159DC-2AF4-11D7-A67A-00039368A22A@syd.eastlink.ca> On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 02:29 , Dale Goodvin wrote: > also, can you tell me how to set preferences so that my font choices > override whatever page I go to. > > Yahoo keeps its own fonts regardless of what I set In Omni Preferences. I'm not sure. But I'll Cc: your message to the OmniWeb mailing list and see if anyone there has a solution to this. John A. Ardelli Owner/Moderator BIFIDA-L: The Original Spina Bifida Discussion List The Crystal Corner - The Original Dark Crystal Discussion List From wjl3191 at osfmail.isc.rit.edu Sat Jan 18 12:52:01 2003 From: wjl3191 at osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Elizabeth Lemke) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:34:51 2005 Subject: Safari-influenced feature requests In-Reply-To: <A54DC51A-2A44-11D7-AE60-0050E4DA671C@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: <94771524-2B26-11D7-B354-00306584263C@osfmail.rit.edu> On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 12:53 PM, Michael Brewer wrote: > On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 06:29 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote: > >> My thinking is that anything to do with Basic File Management should >> be provided by the OS *without* an extra fee. URL's are similar in >> nature to entries in your Address Book which is available for >> developers to tap into and offer further features. It is because of >> the fact that URLs haven't been standardised in the OS that each >> browser maintains its own database of them which is silly. > > I agree, however, I don't want Apple to work on this until they get a > BFS style filesystem in place. Thankfully they hired the guy behind > BeOS' filesystem some time ago. I should point out that Apple already has HFS+ doing journaling now. It is in OS X but, not enabled by default. Probably needs more testing. -Beth ------------------------------------ Elizabeth Lemke http://www.bethdomain.org From wjl3191 at osfmail.isc.rit.edu Sat Jan 18 12:53:02 2003 From: wjl3191 at osfmail.isc.rit.