On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:47:27 -0400 (GMT), Clarence Verge wrote: > Hello Mithy;
Hello Clarence, and plz stop calling me that; I'm "Mithgol", that's an Elven word for "Grey Robe", you'll probably meet parts of it in LotR motion picture coming soon (December 2001); "the Webmaster" stands for my 6th level former character of a wizard capable to cast web spells (Sloth MUD at http://slothmud.org/); that's a very good example of a nickname invented five years ago and useful in the Net even nowadays, when "Webmaster" means something else that I am also capable to cast; > Your demo and report was excellent. Thank you. > However, I was a bit annoyed to find I was downloading a 200k page. > Perhaps you should just include a link to the jpeg instead of > the pix? Yes, I've already thought of it. But it'll be much more annoying to download a 20kb page for offline reading and then to found it requires a ten-times-larger JPEG as an illustration. I've just wanted to be sure that all off you get JPEG also; *embedding* it into the bug report was the only way for me to be sure ;-) I mean, some people prefer reading the Web content at home and getting connected from the other place, e.g. Internet cafe or some library where the price is more affordable. Downloading a page is always faster than reading it, so it saves the money. But if a need of having JPEG downoaded is not directly mentioned in the beginning of the page it may not be noticed at all. > BTW, it's also a good demo of the usefullness of .GIFs and .ZBMs - > that .JPG was huge. I really don't know what that ZBMs are, but I found 256-color GIF to be unfortunately insufficient to demonstrate some minor Arachne issues related to graphics, e.g. noisy behaviour of background seen through fake-transparent GIF. > Some of the problems you demonstrate are YOUR problems - like > the unclean URL bar and the white noise in images. These have NOT > been reported before and my displays are (almost) always beautiful. As I've already mentioned on the same webpage example, the unclean URL bar is just a side-effect of CP1251.APM fonts that are a bit larger than Arachne fonts of size 1 (since v1.65). I've never heard of any Russian user of Arachne preferring the fourth (minimalized) Arachne screen layout - frankly speaking, Arachne is not popular here around me as I may notice, due to domination of MS IE... - that's why I think it may be possible for me to be the first one who ever noticed the bug. The bug is, that Arachne "thinks" her font of size 1 may not ever be higher than Western standard one; that her opinion is definitely wrong. And it could happen that they who noticed the bug before were just so impressed by the integral effect of the whole set of bugs that they just refused to use Arachne once for ever, without any report to the author. Another good idea is that they just didn't know English enough to explain what they did found to be inconvenient in the soft. The white noise on images is just a page background. Download my own homepage http://mithgol.complife.net/ and then turn background image off and set bgcolor to be red - you'll force former white noise to become solid red noiseless ;-) O.K. I'll do it for you - go watch http://mithgol.complife.net/ara-bug.htm all GIFs there are the same, and the page background is RED! Look at the octagons and you'll see lots of excessive RED points as well, if the whiter ones look too beautiful for you... Fake transparency is OBVIOUS, at least in VESA 800x600 modes I proved it to be obvious, and it is not a video card bug since it is visible on Print Screen BMP resulting file. It is a result of GIF rendering in Arachne... It has to be Arachne bug, because both MSIE and Netscape interpret these GIFs correctly and I've never heard of browser wars to do anything concerning GIF standard ;-))) > The HTML rendering errors I'll take your word for and I'm sure we > will have some interesting discussions about each point. Bugs are something to be corrected, not a point for discussion, eh? ;-) > Thanks for taking the time and effort to present this in a useful > manner. I considered it to be a kind of duty for me, though I had to explain (for my own readers visiting my site) why I had to give up at last and to stop supporting Arachne... I gotta know, though, analyzing my own logs of "user-agent" strings, that very few of my visitors actually use Arachne... anyway, I had to mention and even describe and illustrate my point of view not to be considered one of those involved in browser wars. On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 04:04:04 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Mueller wrote: > I browsed this URL with the newest Arachne, and the scrolling was > horrendously slow, both vertical and horizontal, what took so long > was redrawing the screen. Page was slightly too wide to fit, hence > the need for horizontal scrolling, a few letters fell off the right > margin before horizontal scrolling. Yes, that is a good demo for what I call Arachne bug #1: NOBR rendering. There seems to be an issue in Arachne word-wrapping mechanism. > Mithgol, keeping your Web site HTML-compliant is about all you can > do. Tailoring your Web site to render correctly with various > browsers' bugs is a tall order. Right! A good webmaster should rather start bugreporting. Unfortunately I got no reply when, heh, once upon a time, tried to post the report to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the text was sent _without_ 200Kb JPEG, I failed to upload that huge file through webmail interface of Mail.Ru). Anyway mailing list is much more interactive than bugs e-mail ;-) since I am able to see now whether my mail is under consideration or partly rejected, and even I am able to argue. That's good. Does anybody know whether Michael Polak is subscribed to the list?.. The question is important because he is the one who is to deal with all that word-wrapping, GIFs, CSS etc. At least I've always thought he is to, since he is "Arachne author", isn't he? ;-) Deeply yours, M M MM MM M M M I T H G O L M M http://mithgol.complife.net/ T H E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W W W W W E B M A S T E R W W W W W
