Preserved Topic: Amaya W3C Browser / Editor

Ok I was on my daily news hunt (yeah, I'm a news junkie) I hit Slash Dot (or /.) for you avid users, and I found Amaya the W3C browser / editor. Thinking to myself, hey this should be fun, a W3C browser, I know that my HTML is good, it'd be neat to see how it looks through W3C eyes. So I downloaded it, installed it, ran it, and wow I don't know shit I guess.
*Sigh* I guess it's back to the drawing board. And lemme tell you don't try to look at the Ozones front page or access the Asylum with Amaya. Amaya is a very, very strict browser, using it will make you want to tear your hair out. It's so strict you should be trussed up in some kind of fancy German leather with loads of shiny buckles when using it. Amaya will grab you and show you what you don't know about the W3C standards, and it will show you what happens when you make something that only works for specific browsers.

Go try it out for yourself, at http://www.w3.org/amaya/ and enjoy. I myself am going to start testing my pages through Amaya, and working to create things that work in all browsers.

Just so you know Amaya currently supports HTML 4.0, XHTML 1.0, and many (not all) CSS 2 features.

hey F1... or was it girdlehandle.. lol.. or sumin like that! (too early sunday morning)...

of course it is quite correct to check webpages to the WC3 standards, but my only question would be is what percentage of 'Joe Public' use this browser? and is it likely to grow to become a heavy prescense in the future as a browser of choice?

hmmmm... quite a pointless comment from me I guess.. but just thinking out aloud... cheers

I think his point is that, if it works for Amaya, it'll work anywhere...

gonna get that...

how big a DL?

tskull@techie.com">
"War is a series of disasters which result in a winner." --Georges Clemenceau
ICQ: 67751342

I don't think that Amaya will ever become a browser used by the general public. But I think it would be good to test pages made and created, using the Amaya browser, as well as all the other browsers. Amaya just seems like a good way to make sure what you create is compliant. Too often I see people ask why something doesn't work in a specifc browser, but it works fine in another. And when I say that it's a browser spcific piece of code, I'm told that the borwser it doesn't work in sucks. I keep telling designers over and over again, make things compliant from step one, and you won't have as many headaches.
We, as designers, need to support the standards put in place by the W3C. If we don't support the standards we'll end up having to make pages for Netscape, Explorer, Opera, etc... instead of one page for all browsers. I don't know about you, but I don't want to make the same website a dozen different ways for a dozen different browsers. And on that thought, how would you as an end user like to have to hunt through a website to find a page that works for your browser?
The folks at the W3C have a very thankless job, and they should be praised for working so hard to keep some kind of standard. Using Amaya as another test object will help with that. The main thing to keep in mind with Amaya, is that the W3C uses the browser to test things themselves, so it's not 100% perfect, but it's a damn good way to debug browser compliant issues.



EDIT: Petskull, it won't work anywhere, but it will help you to work around browser spcific issues. It more of a way to test what you develop, than to make a finished product.
The DL isn't bad, about 15min on a 56k in dial-up hell.

[This message has been edited by F1_error (edited 11-12-2000).]

<img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif"> I wasnt questioning the validity of the statement.. just trying to bring up an alternate view...

I just DL'ed it at 26,400bps and it took a little over 25 mins <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/biggrin.gif">


thanks for the tip F1...

EDIT: approx 4.8Mb fyi

~Vp~



[This message has been edited by vogonpoet (edited 11-12-2000).]

F1, that's my point...

if I make my page Amaya-compatible... then IE and NN are sure to support it...

tskull@techie.com">
"War is a series of disasters which result in a winner." --Georges Clemenceau
ICQ: 67751342

Yeah, it will. But be careful, it won't look the same as the other browsers. Have you looked at http://ww.ozones.com with Amaya yet? <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">

Just a word of caution.

VP: I just wasn't sure that I was getting my point across, I'm a huge space cadet at times, so it's great that you bring up other ideas and viewpoints.

I am off to DL now. I respect W3C and see them as a champion of the cause.Thank you for the tip.

Viva W3C! (and F1_error for making it possible to have some one-on-one conversation with Golan Levin)

...swept out through the cracks beneath the door...

It took 22 minutes and 10 seconds to DL Windows95 version via US ftp on a cable modem. File size was 4.75MB.

...swept out through the cracks beneath the door...

F1_error: your thoughts are in the right area, but the browsers you are dealing with aren't. Neither Netscape(maybe I should say netscape navigator, since mozilla seems to be extremely compliant) or Microsoft have compliant programs, they both do weird shit. Here are some links too a test suite(from the same organization as who created amaya) http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/
and an artical on IE 5.5. Its interesting though because from everyone else I've heard that IE5.5/Macintosh was supposed to be the best implementation of CSS2 available. I ran my copy of IE5.5/Mac through, and couldn't even get through the prologue without being non-compliant... http://webreference.com/html/watch/ie55/

So if you use compliant code, some obscure CSS junky might go, wow nice use of proper style sheets, but everyone else will go: What the fuck is up with your page? Maybe in a little while NN and IE will step up to the plate and get certified soon. You have an excellent point with developers needing to support standards, especially since I hate the way the net is loosing focus of what is really importand, the consistant ability to convey content to an end user. Look at pages like yahoo, google, mp3.com(urhm, same as yahoo, nevermind), then look at pages like www.olympics.com/, www.people.com, even altavista. Differences should be obvious, especially to anyone using a slower modem or lynx. Gah I'm turning into jacob nielson(spelling?) I need to figure out how to post coherent thoughts to forums.

I am fully aware of just how non-compliant NS and IE are. I've been working with the W3C (through outside groups) for several years now. Nothing too much just tweaking, testing, and voicing an opinion. I think it's truly amazing how such a huge company as Microsoft can make a browser that creates colored scroll bars (why, who needs colored scroll bars?) but cannot make a browser that is even 50% compliant? I've heard the NS6.0 (which should be out very soon) is about the same as IE as far as compliance.

Now I'm all for browser specific code, that's how you create innovation. But first things first, these folks gotta make a browser that is compliant to the W3C spec. However since these companies have already decided to make non-compliant browsers, it's up to us to take the next step and tell them we want a good browser that adheres to the W3C spec. If we, as users and developers, do not make our voices heard, we will end up losing any kind of a standard. This scares me deeply. I cannot even begin to fathom what kind of a web we will have if the standards go 'belly-up

If you'd like to get involved with the cause here are tow links among many that will send you on your way; http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
and http://www.webstandards.org/

Good luck.

f1: That was pretty stupid of me to even think you wouldn't be extremely familiar with the fact that IE and NN suck. Do you mean that you would give up dhtml(I don't even know what kind of web pages you make, so maybe you never used any to begin with), frames, javascript in order to be compliant? That a very noble view point,(which also happens to be one i totally agree with). I recently made a web page, it had nice classy graphics(laugh) using frames, and pop up windows, and worked in both IE and NN(not fun). Then i realized it was bullshit and it would be better if i just redid the whole thing using text and simple images. I even did away with my pretty image maps. Are you saying we should just make compliant pages, and when someone says this is unintelligible in browser x, we say: Get a compliant browser? I'm interested in this also, but I'm just confused

<img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/mad.gif">

I'm not actually mad I just like the mad face

You are right I don't use dHTML, but dHTMl is a good example of innovation. However frames, and JavaScript (although it has another name) are part of the W3C standard. So there is no reason to give those up. I don't know where you are coming from with that. I do know that Amaya does not support frames (and I believe JavaScript), but the Amaya browser is a browser for testing, not for browsing.

As far as telling people that they need to use a compliant browser, I think you are missing the point. What I am saying is design a compliant site from step one. If you do so, it should (and in most cases) work in all browsers. When people tell me that something is unintelligble in browser X, I can usually bet that it's got code for browser Y specific, and thats why it's not working right in X. But, maybe I'm just not understanding your point.

I'm very interested in standardization. I try to use scripting that is compatible with NS4+ and IE4+. I wish I knew more about the whole thing. I've only been doing this since March 2000 when I have time (a very embarrassing Geocities page). I'm glad people like you are making a statement.

What all these browsers have... "is a failure to communicate".

...swept out through the cracks beneath the door...

...some man who just can't see..
..then you get what he coded last week..
...and that is the way he wants it...
...well, he get's it...

*Civil War Intro music*

tskull@techie.com">
"War is a series of disasters which result in a winner." --Georges Clemenceau
ICQ: 67751342

mmm i will try this one out....
Standards== Good
No Standards== Bad. (try pluggin an USA machine in a europe power suply, change the connector until it fits and see what happens. The machine will glow and then do nothing anymore).

Standards with room for inventions== The best thing.

So many of us are designing pages or learning something about this. We could make a difference.
Let's call out for the major companies and ask (or force, when needed) them to make a least standarized browsers.
Do not underestimate the power of JOHN DOE.

Await the up coming Rinswind site

I had my friend come over and I told him to look at his web pages in Amaya. I think he unloaded something into his pants. Then he went on to curse out Amaya to the high heavens.

I think that this is the reaction that most people will have. People tend to want to see their own work looking pretty on their specific version of a browser instead of having the masses see their work in a workable fashion.

This is what leads to the downward spiral of compatability that we are facing. This is why when we write javascript we are forced to use the boolean expression to test the browser compatability.

Amaya is the perfect browser to use for designing the basic layout of your web page. You will not have problems with your tables in netscape of IE, if they work in amaya.

Then you should do your DHTML, javascript, and other coding exercises, and test them in netscape and IE.

Amaya is still in its infancy. You will need to give it time before it will be able to handle all of the advanced concepts.

You have to realize that Amaya aside from being a W3C compliant browser was create specifically to test XHTML and MATHML. So other documented languages and effects were left out so that this release could be given to the public before final votes had to go in for XHTML and MathML.

errr....eh that Amaya browser is not vey stable i think...
it just freezes when i try to run the W3C test.
mmm Or it could not handle bad phone conections.
let's try some more thing with this one.

See ya

Do Not under estimate the power of JOHN DOE

This is a public release, however as Warmage pointed out it's a browser for testing. I wouldn't want to try and use this browser for anything else.

Of course if you are not happy with Amaya for whatever reason, you could try your hand at TIDY an HTML checker. However with TIDY, use only HTML or you'll get tons of errors returned to you.

On another note, I've been told that NS6.0 is now out of beta and is final. The downside to this, is that it doesn't seem to be any better, and that it's W3C support is very poor among other things. I don't know myself, I have yet to download it, and I hear it's a beast as far as the download. Maybe I'll just wait for it come to me on CD.

I just got NS 6(gecko based, which is the open sourced engine i do believe) and it looks really solid in css, except I think they did some stuff that isn't compliant on purpose, like letting you use numbers to start an id selector.. I think I just mis-understood what you were driving at F1, regarding compliant pages etc.. anyway it looks like completely compliant browsers are just around the corner.