> >attributes. This decision has forced some pretty severely hacked-u=
p
> >internal code accompanied by very careful documentation.
>=20
> Hmm, isn't this what JAR and so on are for? Seems like an awfully=20=
> severe design constraint. I certainly agree with "small" as a desig=
n
> goal, but it seems like limiting class file count carries a pretty
> high price. - Tim
It is a painfully high price, especially in terms of coding
difficulty; if NS 3.*, NS 4.*, MSIE 3.*, MSIE 4.*, and HotJava all
accepted the JAR files (or any other archive format), then I wouldn't
worry. As it stands, however, that is not the case, and it is
essential that =C6lfred be easy to use in existing browsers as well as
future ones. That is the same reason that I didn't use any JDK 1.1
features, despite the fact that I _like_ JDK 1.1.
I am willing to be convinced that an extra couple of class files won't
make a difference to Java applet writers (with no special interest in
XML), but I will need to hear that from them.
All the best,
David
--=20
David Megginson ak117@freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@microstar.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/