Talk:ViolaWWW

hard to read

it's very difficult to read example source code in this page because it is aligned at center. I'm not able to fix it, could some do that? thank you, Lorenzo, Italy

-- Classicfilms 2 July 2006

"It ran under the first web browser to run under X-Windows" => " It was the first web browser to run under X-Windows" ? —

Yes, absolutely. Be bold and fix it :-) Good luck, Gwernol 01:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

How to pronounce ViolaWWW correctly? 85.207.166.104 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voila and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/w http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/w http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/w xD --83.28.213.19 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably mean viola! --BlackTerror 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Month irrelevant?

Homepage: "around April 1992" W3C: "May ?, 1992", without "around" for the month. Because here it's not "fi."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.4.62.112 (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol, guess I've made a slave who obeys me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.10.227 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Popularity

Compare with LineMode. France. Nicola did a good work apparently (courtesy of California). Sunet register not available regarding Erwise.

Fair use rationale for Image:ViolaWWW.png

Image:ViolaWWW.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

File:ViolaWWW plotDemo.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ViolaWWW plotDemo.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ViolaWWW plotDemo.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from the article -

"ViolaWWW was based on the Viola toolkit, which is a tool for the development and support of visual interactive media applications, with a multimedia web browser being a possible application. Viola ran under the X Window System and could be used to build complex hypermedia applications that were beyond HTML 3.0 (the latest version of HTML at that time), with features like applets and other interactive content as early as 1992.[7]"

What is this talking about!? HTML 3.0 came about long after Viola was dead. Are they saying the X Window System allowed more complex stuff than HTML 3.0 did? Yes that's true I suppose but only really relevant to people in the early '90s, on an X system, who wants to compare the few web browsers available at the time.

I think "at the time" is relative to the source link, an article written around 2000. Again, what the hell does that have to do with anything now? There's a lot of really irrelevant stuff in this article, and the way it's spread about and unorganised, makes it reading it a really bizarre experience!

In years gone by, it might've been worth taking a "then and now" approach to an historical web browser. But now, in 2017, Viola is completely antediluvian, and I don't think there's much chance of it coming back. So I think this article needs re-doing. Focusing on Viola as an obsolete piece of software, of strong historical interest. Mostly focussing on how it fit in with the world, the WWW, computers, the Internet, and other browsers at the time. There's a lot of early WWW stuff to write about, so I'd restrict this article to directly Viola related stuff.

Certainly it's important enough historically to need recording in this encyclopaedia. And also enough to deserve a proper write. A tidy-up would help, anyone could try and get the timeline in order. But for someone with the proper research and knowledge, it would be great to give it a major re-write. It needn't be a long article.

94.197.120.98 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Article in bad shape

Quoting from the article -

"ViolaWWW was based on the Viola toolkit, which is a tool for the development and support of visual interactive media applications, with a multimedia web browser being a possible application. Viola ran under the X Window System and could be used to build complex hypermedia applications that were beyond HTML 3.0 (the latest version of HTML at that time), with features like applets and other interactive content as early as 1992.[7]"

What is this talking about!? HTML 3.0 came about long after Viola was dead. Are they saying the X Window System allowed more complex stuff than HTML 3.0 did? Yes that's true I suppose but only really relevant to people in the early '90s, on an X system, who wants to compare the few web browsers available at the time.

I think "at the time" is relative to the source link, an article written around 2000. Again, what the hell does that have to do with anything now? There's a lot of really irrelevant stuff in this article, and the way it's spread about and unorganised, makes it reading it a really bizarre experience!

In years gone by, it might've been worth taking a "then and now" approach to an historical web browser. But now, in 2017, Viola is completely antediluvian, and I don't think there's much chance of it coming back. So I think this article needs re-doing. Focusing on Viola as an obsolete piece of software, of strong historical interest. Mostly focussing on how it fit in with the world, the WWW, computers, the Internet, and other browsers at the time. There's a lot of early WWW stuff to write about, so I'd restrict this article to directly Viola related stuff.

Certainly it's important enough historically to need recording in this encyclopaedia. And also enough to deserve a proper write. A tidy-up would help, anyone could try and get the timeline in order. But for someone with the proper research and knowledge, it would be great to give it a major re-write. It needn't be a long article.

94.197.120.98 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This Viola Overview page explains that the Viola engine (that supported the ViolaWWW browser application, among others) was still being updated at least as recently as 1994, and discusses the HTML 3.0 features that it supported in the early-mid 1990s. Jim Grisham (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)