Any updated browers for OS 9

red wrote:
> Hi There
> Is there any updated browers for OS 9?
>
> Thanks


Not from Netscape or Mozilla

the last Netscape for system 9x was 7.01
the last Mozilla for system 9x was 1.2.1
Some private entries have produced a 1.3.1 version
Mozilla is up to 1.7.13 now
Netscape 8 was not produced in a Mac version at all
Firefox and Thunderbird do not have a 9x version
For most users, I recommend Netscape Communicator 4.8 for system 9x,
both Mozilla products and Netscape 7 (based on the Mozilla products)
were not sufficiently developed at the time Mozilla ceased 9x development

AFAIK Safari is OS X only
IE 5.1.7
IE for Mac hasnt been updated for some time and hasnt been available for
download since Dec 31st 2005

Opera 9.0 is available

MacLynx (text based only, very old)
MacWeb (very old)
NCSA Mosaic (very old) (the original browser)
Wannabe (text based only, old)

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, red wrote:

> Is there any updated browers for OS 9?

Mozilla 1.3 from http://www.wamcom.org/

--
Netscape 3.04 does everything I need, and it's utterly reliable.
Why should I switch? Peter T. Daniels 2005 in <news:sci.lang>

In article
<Pine.GSO.4.44.0607191707020.1824-100000 RemoveThis @s5b004.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri RemoveThis @rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, red wrote:
>
> > Is there any updated browers for OS 9?
>
> Mozilla 1.3 from http://www.wamcom.org/

That's several years old, isn't it? (Granted, the OP's "updated" is
extremely vague... )

AFAIK the only browser still in active development for Mac OS pre-X is
iCab. Given that IMO it's also the best browser *and* still free, Mac OS
pre-X users have nothing to complain

--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/%7Etekelenb/>

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

>>> Is there any updated browers for OS 9?
>>
>> Mozilla 1.3 from http://www.wamcom.org/
>
> That's several years old, isn't it?

What's "that"? OS 9?

> AFAIK the only browser still in active development for Mac OS pre-X is
> iCab. Given that IMO it's also the best browser *and* still free, Mac OS
> pre-X users have nothing to complain

iCab miserably fails with most non-Latin-1 characters and even with
several characters from ISO-8859-1. I have reported this so often.
iCab is only good for West European Latin characters - as far as
they are also included in MacRoman.
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/icab.gif

On the other hand, Mozilla 1.3 even displays Hebrew, Arabic, and
Indic scripts quite well on Mac OS 9.
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/mozilla.gif

--
¹ superscript 1 ¼ fraction 1/4 Ð D stroke ð d stroke
² superscript 2 ½ fraction 1/2 Þ Thorn þ thorn
³ superscript 3 ¾ fraction 3/4 Ý Y acute ý y acute
× multiply sign ¦ broken bar

In article
<Pine.GSO.4.44.0607211601020.7229-100000 RemoveThis @s5b004.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri RemoveThis @rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:

[...]

> iCab miserably fails with most non-Latin-1 characters and even with
> several characters from ISO-8859-1. I have reported this so often.

Yes, you have, during the iCab 2.x days. Are you saying this still
applies to iCab 3?

According to the author iCab 3 "supports Unicode" and in my experience
it indeed does (at least inder Mac OS X 10.4). (But I haven't thoroughly
tested it and am aware that you know more of this subject than I do.)

--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/%7Etekelenb/>

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

>> iCab miserably fails with most non-Latin-1 characters and even with
>> several characters from ISO-8859-1. I have reported this so often.
>
> Yes, you have, during the iCab 2.x days. Are you saying this still
> applies to iCab 3?
> According to the author iCab 3 "supports Unicode" and in my experience
> it indeed does (at least inder Mac OS X 10.4).

Sorry, I don't have Mac OS X. I must leave such tests to others
using, for example, these test pages:
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/multilingual1.html
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/arabic.html6
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/hebrew.win
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/baltic.html13
etc.

The display in Mozilla and in [Windows] Internet Explorer 6
is correct. i.e. as intended.

In article
<Pine.GSO.4.44.0607211755220.7415-100000 RemoveThis @s5b004.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri RemoveThis @rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

[...]

> > According to the author iCab 3 "supports Unicode" and in my experience
> > it indeed does (at least inder Mac OS X 10.4).
>
> Sorry, I don't have Mac OS X. I must leave such tests to others
> using, for example, these test pages:
> http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/multilingual1.html
> http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/arabic.html6
> http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/hebrew.win
> http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/baltic.html13
> etc.

Looks to me like iCab 3 handles all these fine, but without pictures of
the correct characters it's hard to be sure as I don't know most of
these characters. I put up some 'screensots' of how iCab 3 renders your
pages: <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/iCab/characters/encoding/>.
Does that look wrong to you?

--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/%7Etekelenb/>

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> I put up some 'screensots' of how iCab 3 renders your
> pages: <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/iCab/characters/encoding/>.
> Does that look wrong to you?

Thank you very much!
I wonder whether *you* switched CSS off or whether iCab can't do.


ISO Baltic Test:

Okay - although letters with cedilla are from a different font than
the rest. Note especially "G g K k l".


Windows Hebrew Test:

The Hebrew text in <dd dir="rtl" class="rightalign"> should be
right aligned, but it is left aligned.

The parentheses are wrong.


ISO Arabic Test:

The Arabic text in <dd dir="rtl" class="rightalign"> should be
right aligned, but it is left aligned.

The digits should be displayed as "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0".
The Arabic-Indic digits are missing, although the Persian digits
are displayed.


Unicode (UTF- Test:

Some Latin Extended letters are from another font. Note especially
"Gg" with cedilla, circumflex, dot above.

Hebrew - errors as above.

Arabic - errors as above.

Devanagari:
The vowel signs for "ku kuu kr krr kl kai" are misplaced.

Gujarati:
The vowel signs for "ku kuu kr krr kai" are misplaced.

Gurmukhi:
The vowel signs for "ku kuu ke kai ko kau" are misplaced.
The letter "l. with nukta" is displayed as "ka" plus a square. ?!

Symbols:
The en dash looks more like a hyphen.


Conclusion:
iCab 3 does certainly better than iCab 2.x. It seems to work
well with the Latin, Greek, Cyrillic scripts. However, iCab is
still not ready for right-to-left scripts and for Indic scripts.

In article
<Pine.GSO.4.44.0607241633050.16946-100000 RemoveThis @s5b004.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri RemoveThis @rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
>
> > I put up some 'screensots' of how iCab 3 renders your
> > pages: <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/iCab/characters/encoding/>.
> > Does that look wrong to you?
>
> Thank you very much!

No prob. If I can find a bug in iCab it's worth it, 'cause then it can
get fixed. Thank *you* for setting up those test pages -- a lot more
work than making a few screenshots

> I wonder whether *you* switched CSS off or whether iCab can't do.

For screen Style Sheets, iCab 3 is one of the best, of not the best, CSS
2.1 browsers IMO. But I had to print to PDF, because a real screenshot
would never have shown your pages in their entirety. Thus I had to rely
on iCab 3's print routine, which is a bit buggy still. Now that you draw
my attention to this (I never print), it seems even worse than I thought.

I've added actual screenshots to
<http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/iCab/characters/encoding/> now. They
can't show you the complete pages, but it's better than nothing.

> ISO Baltic Test:
>
> Okay - although letters with cedilla are from a different font than
> the rest. Note especially "G g K k l".

Might be simply due to non-available fonts? Except for Verdana I have
none of the fonts your CSS suggests. My default is Trebuchet MS.

> Windows Hebrew Test:
>
> The Hebrew text in <dd dir="rtl" class="rightalign"> should be
> right aligned, but it is left aligned.

Looks like an iCab print issue. See the actual screenshot, where it
seems to be fine to me.

> The parentheses are wrong.

In the (newly added) actual screenshot as well?

> ISO Arabic Test:
>
> The Arabic text in <dd dir="rtl" class="rightalign"> should be
> right aligned, but it is left aligned.
>
> The digits should be displayed as "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0".
> The Arabic-Indic digits are missing, although the Persian digits
> are displayed.

Yes, looks like iCab 3 gets this wrong on screen too.

> Unicode (UTF- Test:

[...]

> Devanagari:
> The vowel signs for "ku kuu kr krr kl kai" are misplaced.
>
> Gujarati:
> The vowel signs for "ku kuu kr krr kai" are misplaced.
>
> Gurmukhi:
> The vowel signs for "ku kuu ke kai ko kau" are misplaced.
> The letter "l. with nukta" is displayed as "ka" plus a square. ?!

Hm... I can't judge these. Hope the newly added screenshot helps.

> Symbols:
> The en dash looks more like a hyphen.

I can't judge this. I never know what the differences between all those
dashes and hyphens and their friends are supposed to be exactly.

> Conclusion:
> iCab 3 does certainly better than iCab 2.x. It seems to work
> well with the Latin, Greek, Cyrillic scripts. However, iCab is
> still not ready for right-to-left scripts and for Indic scripts.

You're probably right, although some of these issues seem to be print
specific. The author is aware that printing isn't exactly great yet in
iCab 3.

--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/%7Etekelenb/>

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> I've added actual screenshots to
> <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/iCab/characters/encoding/> now.

The Arabic and Hebrew texts are indeed right-aligned as they
should be. Everything else remains the same.

> Might be simply due to non-available fonts? Except for Verdana I have
> none of the fonts your CSS suggests. My default is Trebuchet MS.

But I don't suggest any typeface in those test pages.
I suggest typefaces only the alphabet pages like
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/urdu-alphabet.html
in such a way that it affects only Internet Explorer.

>> The Hebrew text in <dd dir="rtl" class="rightalign"> should be
>> right aligned, but it is left aligned.
>
> Looks like an iCab print issue. See the actual screenshot, where it
> seems to be fine to me.

Indeed it is.

>> The parentheses are wrong.
>
> In the (newly added) actual screenshot as well?

Yes of course. Parentheses must look like
A ( B C ) D
but not like
A ) B C ( D

Apparently, iCab cannot deal with mirrored characters ()[]{}.

>> The digits should be displayed as "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0".
>
> Yes, looks like iCab 3 gets this wrong on screen too.

I suspect iCab ignores the DIR attribute altogether. This would
also mean that text with "dir=rtl" is not right-aligned by default
but that iCab needs "text-align: right" in addition.

>> Devanagari:
>> Gujarati:
>> Gurmukhi:
>
> Hm... I can't judge these. Hope the newly added screenshot helps.

The same errors as before.

In article
<Pine.GSO.4.44.0607271830420.4752-100000.RemoveThis@s5b004.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri.RemoveThis@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

[...]

[font substitution]

> > Might be simply due to non-available fonts? Except for Verdana I have
> > none of the fonts your CSS suggests. My default is Trebuchet MS.
>
> But I don't suggest any typeface in those test pages.

They LINK to <http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/screen.css>,
which does suggest certain fonts. (I guess you're saying those rules do
not affect these particular pages. Easier for you to say than for me to
find out )

[...]

> >> The parentheses are wrong.
> >
> > In the (newly added) actual screenshot as well?
>
> Yes of course. Parentheses must look like
> A ( B C ) D
> but not like
> A ) B C ( D

Yes, but all the text editors I tried (BBEdit 7.x, TextWrangler 2.1.3,
TextEdit, emacs, SubEthaEdit) can't display many of the 'special'
characters in the source of your pages, so I couldn't verify in which
order you had written the parenthesis.

[...]

> I suspect iCab ignores the DIR attribute altogether.

Is this a proper test:
<http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/iCab/characters/bidi/>? If so, the
latest iCab 3 fails it, as it displays the text left to right. Safari
displays it right to left. However, HTML 4.01 says at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/dirlang.html#adef-dir>: "If a
document does not contain a displayable right-to-left character, a
conforming user agent is not required to apply the [UNICODE]
bidirectional algorithm", so if that applies to my test (I don't know,
I've never looked into bidi), my test is wrong, and so is Safari.

> This would
> also mean that text with "dir=rtl" is not right-aligned by default
> but that iCab needs "text-align: right" in addition.

If so, that would seem to be wrong behaviour, given that this is
probably more than a mere presentational issue.

--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/%7Etekelenb/>

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> They LINK to <http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/screen.css>,
> which does suggest certain fonts.

Yes, yes. But they are applied only in the "alphabet pages" like
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/urdu-alphabet.html
not in the "test pages" like
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/multilingual1.html

> Yes, but all the text editors I tried (BBEdit 7.x, TextWrangler 2.1.3,
> TextEdit, emacs, SubEthaEdit) can't display many of the 'special'
> characters in the source of your pages, so I couldn't verify in which
> order you had written the parenthesis.

You can look at the source text with Mozilla or Firefox.

> Is this a proper test:
> <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/iCab/characters/bidi/>?

The text should be displayed as

?Shouldn't this be displayed right to left

and it does so in Mozilla. It isn't really useful because there
are only Latin letters.

> (I don't know, I've never looked into bidi)

Then you can take a look at
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/bidirectional-text.html
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/charset/text-direction.html

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> Is this a proper test:
> <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/iCab/characters/bidi/>? If so, the
> latest iCab 3 fails it, as it displays the text left to right. Safari
> displays it right to left.

More interesting is the question whether your browsers display
the paragraph left-aligned or right-aligned. What do you get?

left-aligned?
right-aligned?