Adding new features to OmniWeb...

[William Shipley]

I certainly appreciate getting feedback on what new features everyone wants  
to see in the next OmniWeb.  Please be patient with us; NetScape is  
following their own agenda, and it's very hard for us to know what they are  
going to do next.

NetScape 1.1 was just released, and we were as surprised as everyone to see  
what's in it.  You can't expect that we'd already be compatible with it.   
Sure, some of the stuff is in HTML 3.0, but there's a LOT to HTML 3.0, and  
we don't know what NetScape is going to use and what it isn't.  Since  
everyone and his dog is using NetScape, it'd be a waste of effort for us to  
implement HTML tags that NetScape isn't going to understand, even if they  
are in the "standard".

Please realise that by using all of NetScape 1.1's extensions now, you are  
effectively wounding all the small guys (like Omni, but there are a number  
of others) who must, by definition, follow NetScape's lead, and therefor  
will always be a little behind in terms of which HTML tags we implement.

I've tried to compensate for being behind NetScape in sheer number of tags  
implemented by making OmniWeb easier to use.  I think our bookmarks are  
pretty darn neat, and I think drag-n-drop of the little URLs from anywhere  
to anywhere is cool too.

If what you care about is the sheer number of features in your HTML,  
NetScape is going to be a little ahead of OmniWeb (at least until they calm  
down with the new tags, if they ever do).  If they'd publish a list of which  
tags they're planning to implement over the next year we could add features  
when they do, but I don't expect them to do that since it would basically  
just help their competition.  (Look at all the people who say, "You must use  
NetScape 1.1 or this page will look crummy."  Basically, those people are  
helping NetScape gain a total monopoly.  Some people think monopolies are  
good; if I thought that I guess I'd be a Windows programmer.)

If you want a browser that makes it easy to organize the vast amount of  
information on the web, I think, right now, OmniWeb can't be beat.  I  
designed the interface, so of course I'd think that.

I suspect people in the former camp probably aren't big on NEXTSTEP  
anyways; these are the kind of people who appreciate Microsoft Word 6.0  
(with integrated BASIC!).

We WILL be adding features from NetScape, because some of them are cool,  
and because our customers want them.  We'll be trying to do it in a timely  
manner.  Some features (particularly those concerning wrapping text around  
graphics in wierd ways) are nigh-impossible with the Text object, and we'll  
have to rewrite it to get them.  Consider which companies that have  
rewritten the Text object (Pages, Frame, WordPerfect) and the resources they  
had available.  We're talking about a web browser that people want to be  
really cheap, not a super-duper word processor.  (Also note that Frame and  
WordPerfect already had a portable text object core and just had to write  
the display level.)

We can do it, but it'll take time.  In particular, we won't be rewriting  
the Text object for 1.2, but we're thinking about doing it for 2.0 (which  
will be our OpenStep compliant version).  It all depends on what NeXT is  
doing with the Text object for 4.0.  (Sure, they've been saying they're  
going to rewrite it, but they've been saying that since before 2.0.)

Anyways, I don't think it's too constructive to argue too strongly for or  
against certain features on this list.  Send feature suggestions to  
omniweb at lighthouse.com; we'll look at which are the features people want  
most, and put them in 1.2 and 2.0.

BTW, I of course can't officially commit to what will be in 1.2, but we are  
working on tables right now.  We think that's a truly useful feature, and  
we'll try like heck to get it in.  We also believe security is important,  
and we're tentatively planning on adding SSL to 1.2, if it's at all  
practical.

-Wil