Re: 'External' viewers

Bill Janssen <>
X-Delivered: at request of secret on
Message-id: <>
Date: 	Thu, 7 Oct 1993 19:02:20 PDT
Sender: Bill Janssen <>
From: Bill Janssen <>
To: Bill Janssen <>,, (Marc Andreessen), (Kevin Altis)
Subject: Re: 'External' viewers
In-reply-to: <>
References: <>
Excerpts from ext.WorldWideWeb: 7-Oct-93 Re: 'External' viewers Kevin (1358*)

> At  5:57 PM 10/6/93 -0700, Bill Janssen wrote:
> >I've never thought that
> >one particular viewer should be privileged.  Perhaps the `browser'
> >shouldn't even have a viewer window, and all documents should be viewed
> >externally.  In some ways, this is what window managers were intended
> >for.

> Ack!!! That's exactly what I don't want, tons and tons of windows because I
> have to use an external viewer for every different content type (document)
> I open and even those external viewers force you to have a different window
> for each document. I wouldn't complain so loudly if the most common window
> managers did a half decent job of letting you navigate around more than a
> handful of windows, but they don't.

So write a better window manager.  Nothing in the protocol keeps you
from doing it the Mac way, for instance.  Or trade your X11 system for a
Mac. :-)

Another option is to lobby for a modest change to toolkits, so that the
user, when invoking a program, can specify the window which the
application will use.  If, say, both ghostscript and xv knew how to do
this, a browser like XMosaic could easily use the same window for HTML
(via its own parser/viewer), Postscript, and images.  What a win!  By
the way, neither ghostscript nor xv are built with a standard toolkit;
each uses xlib more or less directly.