No, Sam ... you're doubly wrong.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:19:22 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>The JavaScript was the problem
> because it was calling for graphics to be loaded in some way not tolerable
> to Arachne.
The 100 plus lines of javascript you posted to the list WAS NOT THE
PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WAS *NOT* CALLING FOR GRAPHICS to be loaded. One
cell, of one row, of one table was the problem -- where it attempted to
use a javascript rotate command to fetch the graphic. That particular
use was no more related to the 100+ lines of javascripting you put on
the list, than if they had attempted to access a graphic using an https
URL ... point of fact, the behavior is precisely the same because it
triggers the precisely same "unsupported protocol" response resulting in
the frustrated attempt to download an image that cannot be accessed.
> If you were not already aware of the problem at that page
> before going there you might visit the place with images turned on. I went
> there at first with images on to see if I could verify whether it is indeed
> an Arachne crash site, as reported. It most definitely is.
Excuse me? Are you saying that I didn't first test the site with
Arachne in default configuration, and therefore I have no right to
express a need to clarify the facts of the matter? You'd best say "No,"
because when I test a site I do it with integrity.
> JavaScript is
> to blame. Whether it was the primary or the secondary JavaScript is
> irrelevant.
Sam, when the cause of the problem was less than 50 characters in
length, totally separate from what you are now calling "the primary
JavaScript," it is relevant that you nonetheless feel justified in the
posting of those 100+ lines of jsnit that had nothing to do with the
problem. In fact, with all the trash you were so proud of being able to
post, that non-important not-applicable-to-the-problem 100+ lines made
it damned unlikely that many people would have been able to get
*anything* out of that post. And you did not, after all, actually
locate the cause of the problem; you simply threw the html & jsnit up on
the screen and claimed it was somehow the cause of the problem. Glenn
then pointed out to you what you had obviously missed; I pointed it out
to you before I read Glenn's post. If you go back and review the
graphics within the table structure, maybe you too can learn to actually
identify the specific cause of a problem rather than just saying "It's
all the page's fault!" To quote a professor I had in college, when we
asked for clarification on essay exams filling up those dreaded Blue
Books -- "Use a rifle, not a shotgun."
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
