L.D wrote:
>After reading what you'd said about the graphics ID etc, I'd about given
>up. Then you made a comment that solved the whole problem!
>
>> But if some server sends HTML files as plain/text (instead of plain/html) -
>> shouldn't we add the capability to Arachne to notice such failures as well?
>> What we would end up getting would be bloatware since every downloaded file
>> would needed to be checked before being proccessed.
>
>don't laugh ... you've got to promise.
Ok, I'll try not to ;-)
Seriously I hardly laugh at anyones mail (except at direct jokes) - last
time (and only time I can remember but that's probably not true) was when
Michael asked for the location of djpeg32 (source is at gnu.arachne.cz if
anyone is interested BTW).
>[I've been having trouble with downloaded zip files showing up as
>text on the screen but that's another subject entirely.]
These ZIP files are probably sent from:
a. A web-server that sends them in the incorrect format
b. A ftp-server (this one happens to me on several occasions but only after
saving the file, I have however noticed that Arachnes ftp is much better
(ie faster) than the standalone ftp.exe (located in telnet.apm IIRC) so I
recomend Arachne over the standalone program).
>If Arachne would use the "what do I do with it" approach on 'red boxes'
>when we did right-click, WE could tell Arachne 'view as gif, view as
>jpg' .. ?
Yes, but Arachne currently doesn't know (if I've understood it correctly)
that the image in question isn't correct. How could it then see the
diffrence when we want to only see the image?
BTW: Does the image gallery work for anyone? I often need to rightclick on
one of the "converted" images so it is converted - when I later return to
the gallery the rest are converted (IIRC going back and forth also works).
>Since htt (?) renames the files anyway, like someone mentioned earlier,
>that option shouldn't take up much more space in core.exe at all.
But this is in two diffrent stages of Arachnes run-time.
>Most of the time the graphics are not essential to a page. But
>a couple of times I've had problems where onmouseover stuff was very
>graphics linked.
I see more and more pages being hard to access without NS [insert latest
version], JS, automaticly downloaded images and CSS turned on along with
the latest Shockwave [insert latest version] installed. I'm begining to
wonder how normal people that don't care to look in the HTML files can ever
get around these pages unless they always get the latest software (highly
unlikely due to the size of the programs).
>Same option possible with 'right click' -- except when right click on
>what Arachne believes is TXT http page the little box comes up and we
>can say view as html or text. ??
But then you can't go back (as right click does now). I'm sorry but I can't
see this change (not that I care I use the keyboard as much as possible as
you might remember) but Michael likes the mouse and he calls the shots.
Besides changing the way Arachne uses the mouse would not be good for
people that have learned to use it one way - imagine if let's say F3
performed a search (like in edit) instead of going to the URL bar?
>What do you think?
I like the idea of Arachne checking after an error instead much better
since it will not change how Arachne works. (BTW: Thanks Eric for the kind
words).
//Bernie
http://bernie.arachne.cz/ DOS programs, Star Wars ...
