Chapter 4

Netscape Enhancements to HTML

CONTENTS

• The Netscape Problem
• Netscape Differences
• Microsoft Internet Explorer
• In the SDK…

Netscape Communications Corporation's Navigator is easily the most loved-and most hated-browser on the Web. By most estimates, at least 75 percent of Web users use Netscape, and some estimates put that figure as high as 90 percent. One reason that Netscape is so popular is that the company has introduced non-standard tags that enhance the appearance of a site. The good news is that most of these tags work-they really do make a site look better. The bad news? You have to have Netscape (or one of the few Netscape-compatible browsers) to see the enhancements.

While the Internet community debates the relative merits of the browsers and has agreed to disagree about whether sites should be developed that make explicit use of Netscape extensions, one fact seems clear: no serious Webmaster can be without Netscape Navigator. The reason for this is obvious. If he or she has decided to use Netscape extensions, Navigator is needed to test the pages. If the Webmaster wants to develop pages that don't rely on Netscape, he or she will still need to see what the client sees when the client says, "I want my page to look just like…."

These decisions are becoming easier now that many "Netscapisms" are moving into the mainstream of HTML standards. Be sure to compare the HTML 3.2 specification, which became a proposed recommendation on November 5, 1996, with the list of Netscape enhancements. Because Netscape has announced that it will conform to the standard when it stabilizes, you should use HTML 3.2 tags instead of Netscape-specific tags whenever you have the choice.

The Netscape Problem

If you want to start a flame war, just go to any Internet discussion group that talks about Web site development and say either "Netscape Navigator is the greatest thing that ever happened to the Web," or, "Netscape Navigator is the worst thing that ever happened to the Web." Either comment will polarize the group-plenty of folks will agree with your comment, and about the same number will object vehemently. Of course, in the better groups you'll get some private e-mail that says, "We've already had this discussion, and have agreed to disagree. Please see the archives for details."

Popularity versus Purity

Developers who cherish the open standards process by which HTML was developed are concerned that the introduction of Netscape-specific extensions to HTML will confuse and distort the market. Browser vendors who "play by the rules" and concentrate on standard HTML tags lose out when the marketplace demands the Netscape enhancements.

To their credit, Netscape Communications has stated publicly that they support open standards. They participate in the standards discussions, and have proposed each of their extensions to the standards working groups for adoption. Indeed, many such tags have found their way into the HTML 3 standard in some form.

The debate on whether Netscape is the greatest browser ever or a threat to the free world will not be settled here. Instead, this chapter deals with the reality of Netscape and the demand for enhanced pages, and describes a process by which your pages can look good with most popular browsers.

David Ornstein, developer of BrowserCaps, sums it up this way:

• Different browsers still have different levels of support for the standard(s).
• Some versions of the standard(s) are still changing.
• Some people author different HTML for different browsers.
• To author a single page that looks good on as many browsers as possible, you need to know what's supported by various browser releases.

BrowserCaps  BrowserCaps (http://www.pragmaticainc.com/bc/) is the definitive on-line source for information about the capabilities of each Web browser.

Table 4.1 contains a summary of the capabilities of Netscape 3.01, given by BrowserCaps in November 1996. Check BrowserCaps from time to time to see how the capabilities of the various browsers have changed.

The following is a description of each of these tests:

• Link titles (TITLE attribute in <a>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports using the TITLE attribute in an <A> tag to have a more useful description of their destination than just an URL.
  Relevance: Under consideration for HTML 3.0.
• Mailto address, as a hyperlink
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports mailing to an E-mail address simply by clicking it.
  Relevance: Under consideration for HTML 3.0.
• Specification of author's e-mail address (rev=made in <link>)
  Test: HTML pages can include an indication of who wrote them. Some browsers can take advantage of this information. Some browsers (for example, Lynx) allow you to just hit a key or use a simple command to send mail to the page's author. This test checks to see if a browser takes advantage of this author information.
  Relevance: The conformance level is required, but cannot yet be widely relied upon.
• Big text (<BIG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if your browser supports the HTML 3.0 <BIG> tag.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Font color for all body text (TEXT attribute in <body>)
  Test: <BODY TEXT="#... "> sets the color for body text.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Font color for arbitrary text (COLOR attribute in <font>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser allows control over text color using the COLOR attribute of the <FONT> tag.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Font sizing (SIZE attribute in <FONT>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the SIZE attribute of the <FONT> tag to control relative sizing of the display font.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Small (<SMALL>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the <SMALL> tag.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Subscript (<SUB>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the subscript tag <SUB>.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Superscript (<SUP>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the superscript tag <SUP>.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Marquee (<MARQUEE>)
  Test: This tests the <MARQUEE> tag. A simple <MARQUEE> tag causes text to scroll across the browser display area.
  Relevance: Microsoft-specific. Not supported by Netscape.
• Accented entities
  Test: The HTML DTD references the "Added Latin 1" entity set, which only supplies named entities for a subset of the non-ASCII characters in [ISO-8859-1]-namely, the accented characters. This test checks to see if a browser correctly displays these characters.
  Relevance: Essential for even minimal interoperability.
• Heading Levels 1-6
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports headings with differing emphasis.
  Relevance: Essential for even minimal interoperability.
• Alternative image text (ALT in <IMG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser correctly handles the ALT attribute in the <IMG> tag.
  Relevance: Essential for even minimal interoperability.
• Figures (<FIG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports figures, which can include captions and other information, with the <FIG> tag.
  Relevance: Likely to be included in upcoming HTML 3.0 standards.
• Image spacing (HSPACE in <IMG>)
  Test: This tests the HSPACE attribute on the <IMG> tag.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Image transparency
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports transparency in inline GIFs.
  Relevance: Not required by standards.
• Inline GIF87 images (in <IMG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports inline display of GIF87 images.
  Relevance: Suggested for stylistic reasons.
• Inline GIF89a images (in <IMG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports inline display of GIF89a images.
  Relevance: Suggested for stylistic reasons.
• Inline JPEG images (in <IMG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports inline display of JPEG images instead of just GIF images. JPEGs are smaller and load faster, so they might become prominent on the Web.
  Relevance: Suggested for stylistic reasons.
• Inline PNG images (in <IMG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports inline display of PNG images.
  Relevance: Suggested for stylistic reasons.
• Inline XBM images (in <IMG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports inline display of XBM images.
  Relevance: Suggested for stylistic reasons.
• Multiple resolution image fadein (LOWSRC in <IMG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the low source attribute (LOWSRC) in the <IMG> tag. This attribute allows a low-resolution image to be loaded and then replaced by a higher-resolution image (a performance trick).
  Relevance: Netscape-specific. Also supported by Microsoft Internet Explorer.
• No border on linked images (<IMG BORDER=0>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser uses the BORDER attribute on the <IMG> tag to control the presence of a border on a linked image.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Progressive-mode JPEG images (in <IMG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports inline display of progressive-mode JPEG images.
  Relevance: Suggested for stylistic reasons.
• Right-aligned images (<IMG ALIGN=Right>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports right alignment of images using the ALIGN attribute of the <IMG> tag.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Scaling images (WIDTH and HEIGHT in <IMG>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser interprets the HEIGHT and WIDTH attributes on the <IMG> tag to mean that the image should be scaled to the specific size.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Custom bullets for list entries (SRC in <LI>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the SRC attribute in the <UL> tag. This attribute allows the HTML author to override the default representation for bullets in lists.
  Relevance: Likely to be included in upcoming HTML standards.
• Definition Lists (<DL> tag)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports definition lists, such as those used for dictionaries and glossaries.
  Relevance: Essential for even minimal interoperability.
• List headers (<LH>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the proposed HTML list header tag (<LH>).
  Relevance: Likely to be included in upcoming HTML standards.
• Nested definition lists (<DL>)
  Test: This test checks to see if the browser indents nested definition lists. Some browsers have been observed to indent only one level. The standard does not clearly specify what should happen.
  Relevance: Suggested for stylistic reasons.
• Ordered (Numbered) Lists (<OL> tag)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports sequential numbering of lists.
  Relevance: Essential for even minimal interoperability.
• Paragraphs in list items (<P> in <LI>)
  Test: This test checks to see if your browser displays <P> in a list as a new paragraph.
  Relevance: Not required by standards. Supported by Netscape 2.0.
• Sequence numbers in lists (SEQNUM in <OL>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser handles the HTML 3.0 attribute SEQNUM with <LI>.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• The <DIR> list element
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the <DIR> HTML element. This element may be used in place of a <UL> element, and the browser may choose to render it as a list of columns, similar to MS-DOS's DIR command, or Unix's ls(1) command. If a browser doesn't support <DIR>, it usually is rendered as if it were a <UL> element.
  If you have many short items (items no more than 20 characters wide) to place in an unordered list, this is a better element to use, and is much simpler than creating a table.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Center aligned paragraph (<CENTER>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the <CENTER> tag.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Paragraph center alignment (ALIGN=Center in <P>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports centered paragraphs using the ALIGN attribute of the <P> tag.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Paragraph justification (ALIGN=Justify in <P>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports justified paragraphs using the ALIGN attribute in the <P> tag.
  Relevance: Likely to be included in upcoming HTML standards.
• Paragraph left alignment (ALIGN=Left in <P>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports left-aligned paragraphs using the ALIGN attribute of the <P> tag.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Paragraph right alignment (ALIGN=Right in <P>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports right-aligned paragraphs using the ALIGN attribute of the <P> tag.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Preformatted text (<PRE>)
  Test: This test checks to see how browsers handle text within the <PRE> tag (preformatted text). Some browsers do not process the spaces correctly.
  Relevance: Essential for even minimal interoperability.
• Return to default alignment (ALIGN in <P>)
  Test: Some browsers support center and right alignment for paragraphs, but do not restore default alignment for subsequent paragraphs. This test checks to see if a browser restores the default alignment to the left margin.
  Relevance: Suggested for stylistic reasons.
• Basic comment
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports simple comments.
  Relevance: Required.
• Entities in ALT attribute (ALT in <IMG>)
  Test: HTML browsers should support entities embedded in the ALT text in an <IMG>. This test checks to see if a browser handles this functionality correctly by displaying the entity.
  Relevance: Required.
• HTML comments containing markup
  Test: This is a test of the ability to embed markup in HTML comments
  (<!-- comment -->).
  Relevance: Required.
• Right angle bracket in ALT attribute (ALT in <IMG>)
  Test: HTML browsers should support the right angle bracket (>) character embedded
  in the ALT text in an <IMG>. This test checks to see if a browser handles this correctly
  by displaying a right angle bracket.
  Relevance: Required.
• Anchor targets in tables (<A NAME> in <TABLE>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser handles an anchor (link) target embedded
  in a table.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Basic table (<TABLE>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports tables.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Headings in tables (<H3> in <TABLE>)
  Test: This test is designed to determine if a browser supports headings in table cells.
  Relevance: May be included in upcoming HTML standards.
• Post-break in table cell (<BR> in <TABLE>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser interprets a <BR> break that is the last element in a table cell as an instruction to add a blank line at the bottom of the cell.
  Relevance: Not required by standards.
• Post-para in table cell (<P> in <TABLE>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser interprets a <P> paragraph mark that is the last element in a table cell as an instruction to add a blank line at the bottom of the cell.
  Relevance: Not required by standards.
• Pre-break in table cell (<BR> in <TABLE>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser interprets a <BR> break that is the first element in a table cell as an instruction to add a blank line at the top of the cell.
  Relevance: Not required by standards.
• Pre-para in table cell (<P> in <TABLE>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser interprets a <P> paragraph mark that is the first element in a table cell as an instruction to add a blank line at the top of the cell.
  Relevance: Not required by standards.
• Table inside a Table (<TABLE>)
  Test: This test determines whether or not a browser supports tables nested within tables.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Table with an image in one cell (<IMG> in <TD>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports images inside a table cell.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Multiple breaks (<BR>)
  Test: This test determines whether a browser displays multiple line break directives (<BR>) as multiple blank lines (or compresses them into one).
  Relevance: Rendering multiple breaks as multiple blank lines is prohibited by the standard but often occurs and is tolerated.
• Multiple non-breaking spaces (&nbsp; &nbsp;)
  Test: This test determines whether a browser displays multiple &nbsp; (non-breaking space) characters.
  Relevance: Rendering multiple non-breaking spaces as multiple spaces is prohibited by the standard but often occurs and is tolerated.
• Non-breaking space (&nbsp;)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the non-breaking spaces entity (&nbsp;).
  Relevance: Essential for even minimal interoperability.
• Background color (BGCOLOR attribute in <BODY>)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports the BGCOLOR attribute of the <BODY> tag to control the background color.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Background patterns (GIFs)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports background patterns using the GIF file format.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Background patterns (JPEGs)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports background patterns using the JPEG file format.
  Relevance: Included in HTML 3.2 standard.
• Frames (multiple documents) support
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports frames as presented in Navigator 2.0 and later.
  Relevance: Not required by standards.
• Server Push (multipart/x-mixed-replace)
  Test: This test checks to see if a browser supports server-push animation using the multipart/x-mixed-replace MIME type.
  Relevance: Not required by standards, but suggested for consistency.

BrowserWatch  Recall that BrowserWatch, at http://browserwatch.iworld.com/stats/stats.html, maintains statistics on the relative popularity of each browser. In 1994, the leading browser was Mosaic. In 1995, Netscape took that title. It's entirely possible that Netscape could be dethroned within the next year by a new contender. Check BrowserWatch regularly and follow the discussions in the HTML Writers Guild mailing lists or comp.infosystems.www.* to see which browsers and features are being widely accepted.

Netscape Extensions

The preceding information about Netscape reveals a pattern. Many tags or attributes that Netscape recognizes are already a stable part of the HTML 3.2 proposed recommendation and can be used freely. There are other elements that are part of the standard, but have not yet been widely adopted. These elements, of course, should be avoided.

Still other features can be implemented in either a Netscape-specific fashion or an HTML 3-compliant fashion. In general, the HTML 3 style should be favored. Netscape Communications has said that it will fully support HTML 3 when it stabilizes, so HTML 3 elements will work in Netscape as well as all other HTML 3-compliant browsers.

Finally, there are some attributes that are specific to Netscape. You should avoid many of these. If a site seems to require Netscape-specific functionality, use the techniques from this chapter to deliver Netscape-specific code only to Netscape browsers.

Extensions that Conform to HTML 3  The following elements are supported by Netscape and the HTML 3 draft, and may be freely used in accordance with the HTML 3 draft:

• The PROMPT attribute of the <ISINDEX> tag
• The ALIGN attribute of the <IMG> tag
• The WIDTH and HEIGHT attributes of the <IMG> tag
• The CLEAR attribute of the <BR> tag
• The &copy; and &reg; entities

Incompatible Elements  The following capabilities are supported by both Netscape and the HTML 3 draft, but have different elements or interpretations of values. Web developers should avoid these elements wherever possible. Because Netscape eventually will support the HTML 3 standards, the Netscape interpretation of the following elements is likely to change:

• The WIDTH attribute of the <HR> tag (HTML 3 interprets value as percent)
• The START attribute of the <OL> tag (HTML 3 uses SEQNUM)
• The VALUE attribute of the <OL> tag (HTML 3 uses SKIP)

Tables  HTML 3 tables have had a strange "halfway" existence in Navigator. An early version of the HTML 3.0 draft specification was circulated on March 28, 1995, and the complete draft specification was released on July 7, 1995. Netscape began its implementation of tables based partly on the earlier specification, leaving inconsistencies between Netscape's interpretation of tables and the later HTML 3.0 version. For example, the original Netscape tables did not support an ALIGN attribute, and alignment defaulted to flush left (as opposed to center).

The tables in Netscape 2.0 were more compliant with the original HTML 3.0 standard, while retaining backwards compatibility with the Netscape 1.1 version. Because of the popularity of the Netscape approach, however, HTML 3.2 reflects the Netscape design more than it does the HTML 3.0 design. New pages should be written using HTML 3.2, which is supported by Navigator 2.0 and later.

Under Netscape 1.1, BORDER=n was allowed, where n was the number of pixels of thickness of the border. This style is still allowed in Netscape 2.0 and now appears in the HTML 3.2 proposed recommendation.

Similarly, HTML 3.2 specifically requires that the caption element of a table be text. Netscape 2.0 and later allows any BODY element, including headers.

The January 23, 1996 version of the HTML 3 table standard is given in "The HTML3 Table Model" at

http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-tables.html

The Netscape version is at

http://home.mcom.com/assist/net_sites/tables.html

and covers both Navigator 1.1 and Navigator 2.0. The latest versions of Navigator (and, for the most part, HTML 3.2) conform to this specification.

Extensions that Have HTML 3.2 Equivalents  As HTML 3 stabilizes, Netscape is likely to accept more and more HTML 3 equivalents, and the World Wide Web Consortium is accepting more "Netscapisms" into the standard. Each of the following Netscape elements has an HTML 3.2 equivalent:

• SIZE and NOSHADE attributes of the <HR> tag-HTML 3.2 now follows the Netscape standard.
• TYPE attribute of the <UL> and <LI> tag-HTML 3.2 now follows the Netscape standard.
• SPACE and ALIGN attributes of the <IMG> tag-Many developers prefer the <FIG> tag instead of the older <IMG> tag. Both are acceptable in the latest versions of Navigator.
• ALIGN attribute of the <IMG> tag-HTML 3.2 now follows the Netscape standard.
• <NOBR> tag-HTML 3.2 allows the use of the &nbsp; entity.
• <CENTER> tag-HTML 3.2 adds the ALIGN attribute to such containers as paragraphs and headings. Both <CENTER> and ALIGN are now part of both Navigator and HTML 3.2.

Be careful with the <CENTER> tag. If you must use it, always think about how the page looks if a browser ignores the <CENTER> tag. Consider, for example, how the following code displays in a browser that does not recognize <CENTER>:

God is <CENTER>now</CENTER>here!

Perhaps the author's intention is better expressed with:

God is
<CENTER>
<BR>
now
<BR>
</CENTER>
here!

Extensions That Do Not Break HTML 3-Compliant Browsers  The following Netscape extensions do not yet have HTML 3 counterparts. However, their use does not usually cause a problem in non-Netscape browsers, and is not likely to cause information loss.

• <FRAME> and its related tags. (Be sure to put code into the <NOFRAMES> section for browsers that do not support frames.)
• The <WBR> tag.

Extensions That Lose Information in HTML 3-Compliant Browsers  The <BLINK> Netscape tag has no HTML 3 counterpart. Be careful not to rely upon it to emphasize text, since visitors who are not using Netscape (including robots and spiders) cannot see the emphasis. Continue to use headers, <EM>, and <STRONG>, to add emphasis.

Introducing the Enhancement Process

Here is a process to produce a site that can be validated at several levels, and that looks as good as the browser allows:

1. Begin the site with HTML 2.0 only. Lay out all structure, content, emphasis, and graphics using HTML 2.0. Validate the site by using an HTML 2.0 DOCTYPE.
   If the appearance of the site is acceptable for the client's purposes, stop. Otherwise, proceed to Step 2.
2. Improve the appearance of the site using stable HTML 3.2 elements. Such elements include the various table elements, <BIG>, <SMALL>, <SUB>, and <SUP>. Validate the site by using an HTML 3.2 DOCTYPE.
   If the appearance of the site is acceptable for the client's purposes, stop. Otherwise, proceed to Step 3.
3. Improve the appearance of the site by using Netscape-specific elements. Choose only from the list of elements that are unlikely to break an HTML 3.2-compliant browser, such as frames; be sure to put content into the <NOFRAMES> section.Validate the finished site by using a Netscape DOCTYPE.

In the rare cases where a page must be so heavily enhanced for Netscape that it becomes unusable by any other browser, consider building a separate Netscape-specific version of the page. One method of serving up Netscape-specific pages (using the <META> tag with HTTP-EQUIV=REFRESH) is given in Chapter 3, "Standard HTML." You can also use CGI or server-side JavaScript to read the "user-agent" (which names the browser) and return specific lines or even whole pages based on which browser is in use.

What About Other Browsers?  In general, there are five classes of browsers accessing the Web:

• Netscape browsers
• Netscape-compatible browsers (of which the only good example is Microsoft's Internet Explorer)
• High-end browsers, such as Apple's Cyberdog, that implement many stable HTML 3.2 features
• Low-end browsers, such as WinWeb, that implement HTML 2.0
• Broken browsers that have a reputation for failing even on valid HTML 2.0 pages

As a rule, the Internet Web site developer should develop for the largest possible market, while taking advantage of as many features of the high-end browsers (including Netscape and compatibles) as possible. Consider implementing limited workarounds for the more popular broken browsers (such as those from some of the popular on-line services), and continue to encourage vendors who supply those browsers to fix or replace their products.

Why Not Build Sites that Declare "Enhanced for Netscape?"  Many developers have opted to ignore the five percent or more of the market who, for one reason or another, do not use Netscape or a Netscape-compatible browser. While that is the developers' right, it seems unwise to deliberately snub a large percentage of your prospective customers. Some sites go to great lengths to tell the user which browser to use, how to configure it, and even what video mode to use. Because it's relatively easy to build a site that takes advantage of many Netscape features, without sacrificing quality when viewed with a non-Netscape browser, notices such as "best viewed with Netscape" can legitimately be interpreted as a sign of laziness or incompetence.

In the near future, it is likely that browsers and servers will use a new technique called content-negotiation to decide how to display different types of Web data. When that day comes, sites that are already friendly to many different kinds of browsers will not need to change their appearance to the user. Pages that have advertised themselves as "best viewed with [a certain browser]" will have to change that message, and also change how they serve the data.

Netscape Differences

In late 1996, Netscape began circulating beta versions of Netscape 4.0. Netscape 4.0 offers new layout and browsing features, as well as numerous extensions and refinements when compared to HTML 3. The major changes include absolute positioning, layering, and style sheets. Other additions, which are being incorporated into the HTML standard, include frames, client-side image maps, and file upload.

Absolute Positioning and Layering

In general, HTML is regarded as a markup language-HTML writers are more concerned with content than with precise placement. Other tools, such as Adobe's Portable Document Format, have been available to permit "desktop publishing" on the Web.

With Navigator 4.0, Netscape is offering more precise desktop publishing-like features. For example, if you want content (including text, images, and Java applets) to be aligned in a platform-specific manner, you might use the HTML <DIV> tag. But if you need to place the content precisely, you could use

<LAYER "layer name" x="350" y="250">
Here is my precisely positioned text.
</LAYER>