In message <199512010917.DAA28429@snoopy.vetmed.auburn.edu>, Frank Stuart write s: [...client-pull...]
After talking to a couple of people, and playing around some, this seems to be a better choice. That way, you can actually send information (including a list of where to get other browsers) instead of just garbage to netscape users. Is anyone aware of browsers other than Netscape that do client pulls?
There is at least one. However if you can have server-side includes, check out: http://www.va.pubnix.com/staff/stripes/nstest.shtml There is sample source for a netscape tester, and an example of it. If you can't do server side includes, try this (code not written): Add the client pull META tag to all your documents, have the client pull "/cgi-bin/bad-mozilla-no-mozilla-biscut". That script should check the browser type (so it can avoid anoying users of the few non-Mozilla browsers that do client-pull). Remember that a browser type of "Mozilla/1.22 (compatible; MSIE 2.0B; Windows 95)" (or similiar) is *not* netscape. If the browser type indicates a browser type you don't want to anoy you can just re-send the document that the PATH_TRANSLATED env. variable points to. If the browser type indicates a netscape product, then you can take your choice of actions: * Prepend "<A HREF="explain_gaK.html>netscape supports GAK, and that's bad</A>" to the document (you need to do slightly more then that - since you need to emit the normat document up to <BODY>, then your text, then the origanal document again, so you might go for the next option) * Append "<A HREF="explain_gaK.html>netscape supports GAK, and that's bad</A>" to the tail of the document (this works fine unless you have a </HTML> at the end - which almost nobody has). * Only give the "netscape sucks" message. I don't think this is a good idea since it it easyer to hammer your point across if people keep seeing the message then if they can't see your page, and decide to go elsewhere. [...]
That's not a bad idea either. Hopefully, Netscape will post a retraction (soon!) and none of this will be necessary.
Indeed, I hope so. Even if the retraction is formed internally by people going "Jim, this is going to put us at odds with the people who put up content, and gennerate bad press. It might be a better idea to try to stand up agenst GAK then go with it.". (and for the record, yes I do think there is a signifigant chance that the whole GAK thing is a mis-interpration).