On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Justin R. Smith wrote:
> In some respects, I think Amaya is a better graphics browser.  Amaya is
> slower and uses more memory, but seems much more stable. Its
> html-composition user interface also seems better than mozilla's
> (and there's supposedly a version of Amaya that has full Java support).

The main thing I don't like about Amaya is that it seems to be more of
an HTML editor than a web browser. I've heard that it's quite good at
that, but I don't need or want it. I guess it's the double-clicking on a
link that bothers me :) Also, perhaps unfortunately, the Netscape's and
Internet Explorer's HTML seem to be the de facto standard. I forget
exactly what the problem is now, but amaya doesn't render some fairly
common HTML in the same way Netscape and IE do. Something about tables,
I think...

Amaya is much more stable than mozilla currently is though... and yeah,
the mathml is cool (although it's not working for me... It's not finding
the symbol font or something like that; haven't had the time to find out
exactly what's wrong). Anyways, I don't think amaya's bad or anything :)
In fact, I've been planning on making it into a package, but I need to
learn how first :)
-- 
Name: Dave Huang     |   Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: khym@bga.com   |   they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan     |   dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG