RE: google custom search using Netsurf v2.7
Thank you everyone for the advise, I will try this tomorrow and let you know how it went. Rob From: netsurf-users-boun...@netsurf-browser.org [netsurf-users-boun...@netsurf-browser.org] on behalf of Tim Hill [t...@timil.com] Sent: 30 August 2011 07:29 To: netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org Subject: Re: google custom search using Netsurf v2.7 In article <277c4e0a52.michaelb...@michael.beaverbell.co.uk>, Michael Bell wrote: > In message <520a42849bt...@netsurf-browser.org> Michael Drake >wrote: > > In article > > <5b13461198a73e4181c24862591b2b7776b...@ch1prd0102mb121.prod.exchangel > > abs.com>, Mr Robin Lawrence wrote: [Snip] > >> about Java.. [Snip] > Netsurf may not have Java [Snip] I am not going to be the first pedant to point out that I think the problem is more likely with Javascript, not Java. Though it's fair to say NetSurf has neither. :-( An explanation of the difference is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/guides/java-and-javascript ["all browsers support them" - the BBC should know better than to say things like that!] -- Tim Hill .. www.timil.com
Re: H REF="www.etc
In article <90cbe00a52.mar...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Martin Bazley wrote: > The following bytes were arranged on 28 Aug 2011 by Tim Hill : > > In article <42df6e0952.r...@user.minijem.plus.com>, Richard Porter > > wrote: > > > On 27 Aug 2011 Richard Torrens (lists) wrote: > > > > Netsurf takes H REF="www.etc to refer to a external link. > > > Firefox is correct because you might well have a subdirectory > > > called www. On the other hand www.etc in an email message will > > > ordinarily be an external link because a relative link is > > > meaningless unless you happen to be discussing html. > > > > This is all true. I renamed some directories www_thingy_tld exactly > > because a browser was wrongly assuming a RO dir www/thingy/tld was > > a relative link. ^^ Oops, I meant 'an external'. Mea culpa. > > It was a copy of a web site so naming it by its URL > > made perfect sense. To me at the time, anyway. > Surely a relative link is precisely what you want in that context? _Exactly_ > You'd be in trouble if NetSurf decided it was an external link, as > opposed to the name of the directory! It did. At least I think it was an early NetSurf. May have been another. Was a long time ago. > Richard Torrens is also wrong - NetSurf, like Firefox, treats > href="www.etc" as a relative link, as it should do. Now. > This can cause > problems when people wrongly assume that a link starting "www" without > the "http" before it should be external - it's not, it's relative! I've > seen this particular mistake in more web pages than I care to count. I > have no idea why he thinks NetSurf and Firefox behave differently, but > I assure you, they don't. I think that the point is that at some time in the distant past some of us do remember that a RISC OS browser (NetSurf was it?) did treat the relative "www." as if it had the external "http://"; prefix. I remember because I had to change some local directory names to avoid this. It wasn't imagined but it was ages ago. To be clear: NetSurf r12640 currently in use here certainly DOES NOT have this problem. The OP may need to upgrade. T -- Tim Hill .. www.timil.com
Re: H REF="www.etc
The following bytes were arranged on 28 Aug 2011 by Tim Hill : > In article <42df6e0952.r...@user.minijem.plus.com>, Richard Porter > wrote: > > On 27 Aug 2011 Richard Torrens (lists) wrote: > > > Netsurf takes H REF="www.etc to refer to a external link. > > Firefox is correct because you might well have a subdirectory called > > www. On the other hand www.etc in an email message will ordinarily be > > an external link because a relative link is meaningless unless you > > happen to be discussing html. > > This is all true. I renamed some directories www_thingy_tld exactly > because a browser was wrongly assuming a RO dir www/thingy/tld was an > relative link. It was a copy of a web site so naming it by its URL made > perfect sense. To me at the time, anyway. Eh?? Surely a relative link is precisely what you want in that context? You'd be in trouble if NetSurf decided it was an external link, as opposed to the name of the directory! Richard Torrens is also wrong - NetSurf, like Firefox, treats href="www.etc" as a relative link, as it should do. This can cause problems when people wrongly assume that a link starting "www" without the "http" before it should be external - it's not, it's relative! I've seen this particular mistake in more web pages than I care to count. I have no idea why he thinks NetSurf and Firefox behave differently, but I assure you, they don't. -- __<^>__ "Start off every day with a smile and get it over with." / _ _ \ - W.C. Fields ( ( |_| ) ) \_> <_/ === Martin Bazley ==
Re: Faulty page or faulty browser?
In article <520ac71d6a...@timil.com>, Tim Hill wrote: > In article <520abc737ajoh...@ukgateway.net>, John Williams > wrote: > > In article <520aba7967joh...@ukgateway.net>, John Williams > > wrote: > To see (hopefully) that entire legacy site in NetSurf please try > this: > http://timil.com/pirate.king Makes my eyes go funny ;-) Richard
Re: Faulty page or faulty browser?
In article <520abc737ajoh...@ukgateway.net>, John Williams wrote: > In article <520aba7967joh...@ukgateway.net>, John Williams > wrote: > > Whether this special case error is worth auto-compensating for or not > > is up to the developers - but if others get it 'right', who knows! > Contact address given on the page is no longer valid. > Presumably a 'legacy' page. To see (hopefully) that entire legacy site in NetSurf please try this: http://timil.com/pirate.king -- Tim Hill .. www.timil.com
Re: Faulty page or faulty browser?
In article <520abc737ajoh...@ukgateway.net>, John Williams wrote: > > Whether this special case error is worth auto-compensating for or not is > > up to the developers - but if others get it 'right', who knows! > Contact address given on the page is no longer valid. > Presumably a 'legacy' page. I would guess so. Other followers of the zfc would know why I ask. Fresco displays it OK. -- Stuart Winsor
