h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Web Browsers - A Historical Overview - A942275
Author: Increase Mathers, Shrubber of Pelamar - ...because life is beautiful... - U110916

This is the first time I've submitted an article for the Edited Guide, simply because it's the first time I've got interested enough to do so.

Don't bother being sparing on criticism though - it's possible I got *too* interested in places, and the style may have suffered...

[IMSoP]

Here's a nice list of things to keep you busy:

* "The browser is essentially the piece" - remove the word essentially, it is a piece of software
* "stopping it doing what it's doing" - just stopping it (?)
* "and their history is an _intersting_ one." - interesting
* Footnote 3: You might want to note that the W3 abbreviation is still in use by the W3C as part of their name (http://w3.org/)
* "So _enthuiasts_ interested in spreading" - enthusiasts
* "player at the time, but _there_ aim" - their
* Footnote 5: Not all browsers do this, although the ones that don't tend to have configurable user-agent strings, like Galeon and Opera. If set these browsers will acknowledge who they really are.
* "This was a _cloever_ trick on two fronts" - clever
* other text mode browsers (if you want to mention others): links, w3m
* "or even over a remote connection, such as Telnet. ", well telnet can be used to directly read webpages...
* "and because geeks will be geeky" - yes, that's why they're called geeks
* "(a fact that web designers should be aware of when formatting their pages)" - a note to the effect that most web designers actually don't. Elsewhere you may want to say a bit more about all the incompatibilities between the different browsers and what effect this has had on the web today.

Excuse any mistakes, its still dark here.

spelugx -- not awake

Good article! Not too geeky, not too long (!)

In terms of readiness for the EG, it could probably go in as it is, but I think there is potential for improvement as well.

I agree that you haven't gone into much detail on the effect all this activity has on normal users or web designers (and these days, everyone can knock up a basic web page).

I would offer an explanation along the lines of:

There is a standard for HTML but browser companies are keen to 'extend' the standard HTML to make the product more attractive to consumers. However, because these 'extensions' are not standard, they usually only work properly in the browser they are designed for.

This presents a problem for web designers who - contrary to your remark in the entry about formatting - should not have to ensure that their designs are compatible with each and every browser.

If a client wants an all-singing, all-dancing snazzy website, the chances are that it is not going to be compatible with every browser on the market. Designers could persuade their client that their corporate image would be much better expressed in simple text with no cool navigation menus that slide gently around the screen. Or they could design the site for a particular browser and version (usually IE as this has by far the biggest penetration of the market) and have cool menus galore.

At the same time, the W3C periodically updates the standard for HTML, incorporating more tags, features and functionality each time. At first, not all browsers implemented the new standards completely, so confusion reigned. However, the process for updating the standards has now become easier.

The new proposed standard, XHTML, tightens up on its structural rules. Previous version of browsers such as IE allowed bad mark-up, correcting the mistakes if it could. With XHTML bad mark-up is not allowed - partly because documents are now required to be displayed on a number of devices, not just computers. Phones, PDA, television, maybe cars, fridges, walls - who knows.

I think you could also extend your definition of a browser. I didn't think that 'drawing a web page on your screen' was saying very much. At its simplest, what the browser allows you to do is to request a document from a remote server and display it. The document is formatted in HTML (hypertext mark-up language), which tells the browser how to display it in the browser window. Like word-processing, HTML lets you specify the font, which words are in bold, which words have hyperlinks to other documents, where the images should be placed, and so on.

You also make a point near the beginning of the entry that "many alternative implementations were developed around this time". Which inmplementations do you mean? GML (generalized mark-up language) and SGML (standard GML), on which HTML is based, were developed much earlier in the 1970s.

It's interesting that you've mentioned browsers like Opera and Lynx, but not the AOL browser - which is what a lot of people use. The only people I know who use Opera are geeks (although there are a lot of us around these days!).

Despite all that, I think that this is pretty a user-friendly entry.


Gubernatrix

Very good entry!

My only extra suggestion is to reference or add a link to the soon-to-be-edited entry on the basics of HTML -- A908903.

RhoMuNuQ

well, in my opinion the subjects is too much on Netscape.
obviously you don't seem to like the IE from Microsoft. thats OK, but I think an article should be uncomitted.

Very good indeed! (just get away the typos and that'll be it)


Gubernatrix, the AOL browser isn't "the AOL browser"! Up to AOL6.0 it is nothing else but MSIE, running without its standard menu bar etc. I don't know AOL7.0 but some time ago AOL announced that they were going to switch to Netscape.

for the speedy, constructive and (phew!) mostly positive comments, everyone!

I must go to bed soon, as I was up till 5AM last night in an effort to get this written - but I thought I should respond to some of the comments made so far, and note down what I intend to do about them (when I'm not so ...) This will make for a long post, half of which will be semi-redundant once I've actually done the editing, so feel free to ignore it for now if you're pressed.

I've run the whole thing through a spell-checker now: I don't know why I didn't do that in the first place. If there's any errors left (eg. grammar, nonsense sentences), let me know.

I guess Gubernatrix is right - there should be a proper introduction to what a browser does, probably linking to A908903 while I'm at it.

I will re-emphasise the continuing use of W3 in footnote 3.

I'll see if I can pluck some names out of "rival" hypertext-type systems - perhaps referring to them as "variations on the theme", rather than "alternative implementations"

I'm going to try and rewrite each section to include a mention of how the developments at that stage of the story affected end-users, software developers, and web authors, as I agree that this would give the article a bit more focus and purpose. Since the story is historical anyway, I think it makes sense to combine this with the main text, rather than adding a seperate explanation as Gubernatrix suggests.

As for my not mentioning AOL, it's an interesting point, although not as a seperate browser per se - it's a kind of sub-plot in itself the main reason I didn't mention it was because I didn't know how to fit it into the main story:
Originally, AOL was completely seperate from the internet - a private dial-up service. Then, when the Web became popular in 96, it bought out Booklink InternetWorks and built it into its existing software. It wasn't very nice to use, though, and it then did a deal with Microsoft to use IE as the web component instead. In 98 it bought out Netscape, but didn't immediately end its deal with MS; only since Mozilla finally came to fruition has it started moving towards Gecko as the browser part of its software (and, incidentally, Compuserve's, who it also owns).
I'm not sure whether to mention all this at key points along the way, or to make a seperate section of parallel developments. All suggestions welcome.

Finally, I'm surprised, HanSolo, that you considered it to be biased - I didn't intend anything other than the facts. Although I don't like IE much, I'm not that keen on commercial Netscape either (I use Mozilla). The difference in my reporting of them is simply due to the fact that Netscape was, in its time, ground-breaking; IE is simply popular. OTOH, if you can point me in the direction of any misrepresentations I should clear up, then please do so!

Oh, and Spelugx, I'm not sure what, if anything, you intend me to do about the following comments, would you mind clarifying?:
"* "stopping it doing what it's doing" - just stopping it (?)" [do you mean I should rephrase the description? I suppose it is a bit colloquial...]
"* "and because geeks will be geeky" - yes, that's why they're called geeks"

Right, I think that deals with everything so far: thanks again for the feedback, and I'll see what I can do ASAP!

[IMSoP]

I knew I'd miss some!

rephrase footnote 5 to the effect that they don't *all* do it

"* other text mode browsers (if you want to mention others): links, w3m" - yes, perhaps I should mention the concept first, and the fact that lynx is the most famous example later...

As for "* "or even over a remote connection, such as Telnet. ", well telnet can be used to directly read webpages..." - I think that's a bit like saying a piece of paper counts as a word-processor, if you see what I mean - you *could* use an oscilloscope to measure the signals being sent over the wires if you wanted, but you wouldn't learn much. If you're wondering what the point would be, it's sometimes necessary to view a web-page from the other side of a firewall, and you can't necessarily log-in through that firewall with a normal browser - but I thought explaining in that much detail would just distract from the topic in hand.

[IMSoP]

I was just pointing out those phrases since they had repeated words in them, which makes them sound 'wrong' (imho). Another point: GML and SGML and not 'rival markup-languages', they are part of the 'family history of HTML'. First came GML, then this was standardised to SGML, but SGML itself never took off because it was very complex with lots of features. HTML can be parsed by any SGML parser (so can XML), but it is a _subset_ of SGML and a particular SGML DTD. XML is another simplification removing more SGML shortcuts (implicit closing tags for example), but it is still only a subset of SGML. So I wouldn't describe them as 'rivals' as such, since they have directly competed with each other, they have grown from one to another.

spelugx -- looking for his subed hat

>>Gubernatrix, the AOL browser isn't "the AOL browser"!

Yes it is. Behind the scenes it is a cut down version of IE, but it is marketed as a proprietary browser and behaves differently to IE from the user's point of view, as well as having a different user interface.

Mathers, maybe its worth just saying in the entry that although IE and AOL are very popular, they aren't very important in the history of browser development (as you said in your reply above).

Good entry.

You seem to have covered the essentials pretty well. I've only just read this (after corrections) and it reads well, which means it wasn't a drag on my concentration.

Just a footnote - having used Opera 6.04 for some time AND bought it there are some downfalls. Mostly this is to do with the IE identification which is set at IE5. Some sites do not work AT ALL and links to pages and sites sometimes don't happen. It is still a good alternative to IE, however.

Keep up the good work!

Hey Everyone,

Just to let you know that this entry has been scouted - before I can process it for the EG, I need to know if it is ready to roll.

Ashley

Sorry, the long pause is primarily my fault.

Added to my usual lack of co-ordination, determination, and other important -ations (such as punctualiation...), I've spent the last week feeling distinctly ill, and not doing anything.

I had a major rewrite in mind, the key points of which I noted (partly for my own reference) a couple of posts back. I'll try and get on with doing it in the next few days...

well, don't misunderstand me...the article is written very well. the improvements made it much better to read.

as for my critics: this was just the impression I got when reading it. maybe someone else wouldn't think the same way.

I have a small addition: you don't write anywhere in the "history" section, that the WWW belongs to the Internet. Maybe give this little fact a line somewhere?

Han Solo

What I'll do is leave this in PR for the meantime so a scout can recommend it in the near future.



Ashley

Hi! I think this is ready to roll, pretty much. Could you let us all know when you've done your final alterations?

Whoami?

Ooh, yes, ...
Some of the suggestions in this thread seemed rather good ones, and I thought I'd do a kind of second version while I had the chance (i.e. before it was finally edited).

I went to start working on it this weekend, but got distracted by other matters (as ever). I guess all I can say - what with coursework etc. taking priority - is that I'll be rewriting it "noos".

Glad everyone seems to consider it good enough *without* the overhaul though, it's nice to know I can write "well" by so many people's standards...

But, yeah, I do want to do some extra work on it before getting edited, so um... you'll have to be patient, I'm afraid!

[IMSoP]

You were looking for alternative hypertext systems. see http://www.zyra.org.uk/fotball1.htm for one example.

you might also want to link to my page of web browsers, which I keep as up to date as I can. http://www.xyroth-enterprises.co.uk/wbrowser.htm

otherwise, keep up the good work.

like to see more on text only browsers, you only mention lynx briefly and no mention of links, elinks, w3m etc...

Yes, I think someone else suggested I mention some of those, too. Out of interest, does anyone know anything about those *from a historical standpoint*? The main reason I mentioned lynx (apart from general popularity) was because I came upon an interesting history of it, which I thought I might be able to thread into the main narrative, as it were. I'll certainly list them as alternatives, but I'll probably still use lynx as a kind of "case study". Possibly, the whole thing could come under the early days (eg. "early cross-platform browsers were text-based ... text-based still used ... notably lynx, which was originally for a different hypertext system ..."). Hmmm...

[note: the fact that I'm posting here doesn't suggest that I'm any nearer to having time to rewrite the article. I will try and get round to it sometime, though. Honest. ]