Is the website ok?

**Andreas Prilop** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
[color=blue]
> At a random check of source at Dr.John's pile of pages I find this;
>
> ...and the escape velocity is
> & Ouml;2
> times the orbital velocity.
>
> I'm pretty sure that Dr.John did not intend for me to see the letter
> 'O' with two dots above it[/color]

It's even worse on platforms that do not use ISO-8859-1 as native
encoding but, say, MacRoman or cp850 or cp500. The entity Ö
is displayed with character x85 on the Macintosh because char x85
is 'Ö' in MacRoman. But the Symbol font has *no* character x85.
<http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/VENDORS/APPLE/ROMAN.TXT>
<http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/VENDORS/APPLE/SYMBOL.TXT>

This is really stupid, "Dr" John Stockton.
[color=blue]
> (the Swedish character 'Ö')[/color]

I regard it as German character. :-)
[color=blue]
> OTOH my MSIE6 shows the square root character which is probably what
> Dr.John intended.[/color]

But only if you set the option "Allow documents to use other fonts".
(I don't know the exact wording in Internet Explorer.) _My_ settings
are "Don't allow documents to use other fonts".

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

**Andreas Prilop** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue]
> I receive a reasonable amount of feedback about my pages - of all sorts,
> down to the trivial. No actual reader has yet reported that the
> material does not show in a satisfactory manner.[/color]

Sir, I complain that your construction
& Ouml;
doesn't show anything with Macintosh browsers.
[color=blue]
> Therefore, I assert
> that the set of those dissatisfied with what they see is unworthy of my
> consideration.[/color]

Few people will realize that there is something wrong with _your_
authoring and fewer still will write to you. One reason certainly
is that one has to find out your e-mail address from a graphics
file <http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/graphics/e-m-adrs.gif>
and retype it in one's e-mail program. Why bother?

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue]
> JRS: In article <Pine.LNX.4.53. 0406221952140.3 0284@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk[color=green]
> >, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html, Alan J. Flavell[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> >You insist, it seems, on stumbling along with an obsolete system and
> >refusing all pointers to available upgrades. I should have given up
> >sooner, shouldn't I?[/color]
>
> Obviously. And if you can believe that an author should publish what he
> cannot readily read, then your judgement is self-discredited.[/color]

Straw man arguments too. Well, well.

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
[color=blue]
> At a random check of source at Dr.John's pile of pages I find this;
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">[/color]

Oh yes, I think I just found the very page. No surprises that it
fails HTML validation; but I -was- surprised that John has actually
managed to put Mozilla into standards-compliance mode. I must admit I
hadn't even thought of trying it.
[color=blue]
> ...and the escape velocity is
> & Ouml;2
> times the orbital velocity.
>
> I'm pretty sure that Dr.John did not intend for me to see the letter
> 'O' with two dots above it[/color]

But that's precisely what he *asked* for, and that's what Mozilla
does.

Lynx, of course, also.

Andreas's point about the Mac platform was also very relevant, except
that I suppose Macs are only used by specialists, and - judging from
his answers - John doesn't want to be read by specialists.
[color=blue]
> There is nothing wrong with my ability to read and understand basic
> math formulas but this example would keep me puzzled for quite some
> time :-)[/color]

Well, there you go. The ultimate in HTML compatibility: "works" only
on broken browsers. There's a lot of them about, and he's told us
that they're the only ones he cares about. So I guess he and we
should just retire under our respective bridges and let the world get
on with life...

**Dr John Stockton** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

JRS: In article <Pine.GSO.4.44. 0406241659590.3 635-100000@s5b003>, seen
in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html, Andreas Prilop
<nhtcapri@rrz n-user.uni-hannover.de> posted at Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:08:59
:[color=blue]
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Dr John Stockton wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I receive a reasonable amount of feedback about my pages - of all sorts,
>> down to the trivial. No actual reader has yet reported that the
>> material does not show in a satisfactory manner.[/color]
>
>Sir, I complain that your construction
> & Ouml;
>doesn't show anything with Macintosh browsers.[/color]

Given the circumstances, you, of course, do not count as a normal
reader.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Therefore, I assert
>> that the set of those dissatisfied with what they see is unworthy of my
>> consideration.[/color]
>
>Few people will realize that there is something wrong with _your_
>authoring and fewer still will write to you. One reason certainly
>is that one has to find out your e-mail address from a graphics
>file <http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/graphics/e-m-adrs.gif>
>and retype it in one's e-mail program. Why bother?[/color]

Those who have something worth saying will have no real difficulty in
finding the address. Had you been both observant and wishing to be
fair, you would have noted that the page contains the information in
another form, intelligible to those with intelligence but without
eyesight.

While you are working your way through my site, please observe that
there are two other pages that you seem to be better-qualified than such
as AJF to comment on; likewise probably JRE.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demo n.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

**Andreas Prilop** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[color=blue]
> The ultimate in HTML compatibility: "works" only on broken browsers.[/color]

<http://www.netzero.net/support/info/net60-users.html>
©2004 NetZero, Inc.

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

**Neal** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:06:50 +0200, Andreas Prilop
<nhtcapri@rrz n-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The ultimate in HTML compatibility: "works" only on broken browsers.[/color]
>
> <http://www.netzero.net/support/info/net60-users.html>
> ©2004 NetZero, Inc.
>[/color]

Oh, that is entirely bullshit. I've always hated NetZero, now I have a new
reason... the name is rather apt, isn't it? ;}

**Uncle Pirate** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
> Oh, that is entirely bullshit. I've always hated NetZero, now I have a
> new reason... the name is rather apt, isn't it? ;}[/color]

If you're referring to the blank page (zero content) that I saw at the
link, yep, very apt.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate"
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Cooordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM AMA#758681
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

**kchayka** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Uncle Pirate wrote:[color=blue]
> Neal wrote:[color=green]
>> Oh, that is entirely bullshit. I've always hated NetZero, now I have a
>> new reason... the name is rather apt, isn't it? ;}[/color]
>
> If you're referring to the blank page (zero content) that I saw at the
> link, yep, very apt.[/color]

Try it with JS disabled. ;)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

**Uncle Pirate** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

kchayka wrote:[color=blue]
> Try it with JS disabled. ;)
>[/color]

I thought that's why it was blank.

No javascript, java, plugins, cookies, or popups. I don't browse that
way; I don't code that way. I keep the most insecure browser available
for when I must visit sites that require that crap. Only two on my
list: Ameritrade and Ebay. I run Ad-Aware and Spybot after those visits.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate"
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Cooordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM AMA#758681
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Uncle Pirate wrote:
[color=blue]
> kchayka wrote:[/color]

it's about http://www.netzero.net/support/info/net60-users.html
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Try it with JS disabled. ;)[/color]
>
> I thought that's why it was blank.[/color]

Oh no, it was much more fun with JS enabled! While displaying a blank
window, it was furiously fetching -something- from their web site,
over and over and over again. I wondered whether to leave the office
browser doing that all night - after all, it's not my fault - they
evidently designed this behaviour into their web site, whether through
intent or incompetence is not my problem: anyhow, I switched to
another window for doing useful work, and when I went back later it
was still beavering away with trying to fetch stuff from their web
site, without managing to display anything; I lost patience and put it
out of its misery.

But I've just tried it again from the dial-up (using Mozilla, natch)
and it's noodling away again. This web page is "Unsafe at any speed"
(if you know what I mean).
[color=blue]
> No javascript, java, plugins, cookies, or popups. I don't browse that
> way; I don't code that way.[/color]

Good for you!

**Uncle Pirate** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Uncle Pirate wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>kchayka wrote:[/color]
>
>
> it's about http://www.netzero.net/support/info/net60-users.html
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Try it with JS disabled. ;)[/color]
>>
>>I thought that's why it was blank.[/color]
>
>
> Oh no, it was much more fun with JS enabled! While displaying a blank
> window, it was furiously fetching -something- from their web site,[/color]

I noted that too with js disabled. I just didn't stick around long.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>No javascript, java, plugins, cookies, or popups. I don't browse that
>>way; I don't code that way.[/color]
>
>
> Good for you![/color]

Thanks. I just figure I don't like all that stuff, why inflict it on
others?

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate"
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Cooordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM AMA#758681
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Uncle Pirate wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> No javascript, java, plugins, cookies, or popups. I don't
>>> browse that way; I don't code that way.[/color][/color]
>
> I just figure I don't like all that stuff, why inflict it on
> others?[/color]

It seems so obvious, doesn't it? And yet, a short time out on the
www suggests that very few authors seem to have grasped it.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Home - TS McHughs Irish Pub & Restaurant

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Uncle Pirate wrote:
>[color=green]
>> kchayka wrote:[/color]
>
> http://www.netzero.net/support/info/net60-users.html
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Try it with JS disabled. ;)[/color]
>>
>> I thought that's why it was blank.[/color]
>
> Oh no, it was much more fun with JS enabled! While displaying a
> blank window, it was furiously fetching -something- from their web
> site, over and over and over again.[/color]

Perhaps someone from Net0 reads ciwa*? I just checked with Firefox,
with js enabled and disabled, and got a page in both cases.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Home - TS McHughs Irish Pub & Restaurant

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 07:10 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Perhaps someone from Net0 reads ciwa*? I just checked with Firefox,
> with js enabled and disabled, and got a page in both cases.[/color]

Well, I just revisited from Moz 1.6, and also got the page displayed -
but then I remembered having disabled JS. Reloading with JS enabled -
and it's noodling away indefinitely with a blank display, happily
trying to reload something, just like the behaviour I had seen
previously. Of course, cookies are disabled - that might be a factor
which they hadn't bargained for? But I'm only guessing - because I
really don't think it's my job to debug their page for them.

cheers

Is the website ok?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment