Re: Grey page
In article 53c327b25dbrian.jord...@btinternet.com, Brian Jordan brian.jord...@btinternet.com wrote: In article 53c32539bdstuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk, lists stuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk wrote: Although the home page http://www.arceurotrade.co.uk/default.aspx appears to disply correctly, trying to go to any other page results in a completly grey page NetSurf 3.1 (Dev C1 #1556) [Snip] Some pages have the expected content and below that a massive grey area, some are the other way around with the grey at the top. Scroll down these pages, eventually you will find the content. At least that's what I see with the same version of NetSurf. I'm not getting that here with Dev Cl #1558. Seems to be entirely OK with JS on. Thanks for the link, as it happens this is a site I will find very useful ;-) That is useful isn't it. Takes me back a long way too. 8-)
Re: Avaaz.org
Any ideas why attempts at running Avaaz URL's nearly always fail, please? See, for instance, http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Stand_with_the_Philippines/?blOZUcbv=31098 Similar problems here: it takes forever to load the page, clicking close on Netsurf's window causes Netsurf to die and spit out an error (can upload the Log file somewhere if needed). This is with JS on; disabling it loads the page ok and lets you type in your email address but clicking sign brings up a page claiming you haven't. Netsurf 3.1 (Dev CI #1449) with RISC OS 5.21 on Pi Thanks for that, Chris. Exactly the same behaviour here (Dev CI #1449) with RISC OS 4.02 on A7000+. In the past, it didn't do that. However, as long as it isn't being caused by me!
Avaaz.org
Any ideas why attempts at running Avaaz URL's nearly always fail, please? See, for instance, http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Stand_with_the_Philippines/?blOZUcbv=31098
Re: 3.1 (Dev CI #1330)
The latest build uses the polygon plotter to draw the triangles instead. On some platforms, this means the triangles are no longer anti-aliased. That looked dreadful, so I've changed it to generate bitmaps of anti-aliased triangles of the appropriate size and colours at runtime. Is anyone testing this stuff? Also the undo/redo textarea handling. Looks just great here. I can now see what is happening.
Article - json - Unable to download this article
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/australian_coal_disaster_global/?blOZUcbv=27497 With json I get the above message. However with jsoff the article eventually downloads but the action boxes are inert.
Re: #1276 Page rendering
At Amazon site, http://www.amazon.co.uk/packaging Upper part of page, rendering ever so slightly a bit of a shambles. Repeatable. Now moved to #1286 and page rendering still a shambles. However, re-loading the page seems to effect a cure.
#1276 Page rendering
At Amazon site, http://www.amazon.co.uk/packaging Upper part of page, rendering ever so slightly a bit of a shambles. Seems to be confined to this particular page. #1276 otherwise appears to be OK.
Re: #1276 Page rendering
At Amazon site, http://www.amazon.co.uk/packaging Upper part of page, rendering ever so slightly a bit of a shambles. Repeatable. Seems to be confined to this particular page. #1276 otherwise appears to be OK. Seems OK here - I've just had a look at a few Amazon pages and could observe no issues, with the possible exception that the Search box is a little high, and the text on the Go button is aligned to the top instead of the centre. And here too, but what I get from that URL is my pre-checkout page, where I have to put in my password. Could Brian perhaps post a screenshot of what he's seeing? I'm unaware of any approved route to post images and I'm not up for medieval torture, otherwise. Cheers
Dev Cl #1123
Site http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/gaming/pc-gaming-accessories/pc-gaming-accessories/gaming-mice/logitech-g400-optical-gaming-mouse-11358327-pdt.html significant differences in NetSurf rendering page from Firefox page rendering but, in particular, jpeg obscures text.
Re: nbsp; Non-breaking space.
#1096 I included a list of names on a webpage the other day and my co-editor doesn't like to see name split across a line. I agree: when lines are long a split name looks silly when you can easily place a non-breaking space between forename and surname. Browsers know not to split a line at a non-breaking space, don't they? Except Netsurf? I have not reported this as a bug (yet) because I expect a crescendo of we know! See the production crew near the foot of the page. All the names have nbsp; in them: http://www.youngtheatre.co.uk/archive/199209_blithespirit/ (One aspect of line endings I see does seem to be fixed and that was the spurious line feeds which I saw in tables. Hurrah for that!!) Not sure if you are or aren't saying that you are unhappy with the end result. I would prefer it if Netsurf would treat nbsp; as the special kind of space it is and not break lines at it. [snip] Err, that's funny. An observation. Just for the hell of it I saved the said page and loaded it off-line and the PRODUCTION CREW then formatted correctly, as opposed to loading the file on line which formats differently?? Dev Cl #
Re: nbsp; Non-breaking space.
#1096 I included a list of names on a webpage the other day and my co-editor doesn't like to see name split across a line. I agree: when lines are long a split name looks silly when you can easily place a non-breaking space between forename and surname. Browsers know not to split a line at a non-breaking space, don't they? Except Netsurf? I have not reported this as a bug (yet) because I expect a crescendo of we know! See the production crew near the foot of the page. All the names have nbsp; in them: http://www.youngtheatre.co.uk/archive/199209_blithespirit/ (One aspect of line endings I see does seem to be fixed and that was the spurious line feeds which I saw in tables. Hurrah for that!!) Not sure if you are or aren't saying that you are unhappy with the end result. I'm no expert but isn't something odd happening round the last '' where the ';' doesn't show. Is that forcing the surname to the next line, perhaps??
dv #1028 jpeg rendering
Just a small glitch. Fetching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen a JPEG rendered OK but a PNG didn't, initially. A second attempt at fetching and a re-load, all JPEG's and PNG's appeared to render successfully.
Re: dv #1012 continous loop alt/break freeze
However, I then tried an Alt/Break Quit on NetSurf, which exited cleanly - except that, trying to restart NetSurf gave a message, 'Cannot open Wimp$ScrapDir WWW.Netsurf.log for I/O redirection' [snip] Just a foot note. please. In examining the NetSurf.log I noticed the following, (299.28) image/image_cache.c image_cache_fini 439: Total images never rendered: 31 (includes 28 that were converted) (299.28) image/image_cache.c image_cache_fini 443: Total number of excessive conversions: 0 (from 0 images converted more than once) out of interest, is this significant in some way?
Re: dv #1012 continous loop alt/break freeze
In article 53340ba4ecjoh...@ukgateway.net, John Williams joh...@ukgateway.net wrote: In article 53340a963cbbai...@argonet.co.uk, Brian Bailey bbai...@argonet.co.uk wrote: However, I then tried an Alt/Break Quit on NetSurf, which exited cleanly - except that, trying to restart NetSurf gave a message, 'Cannot open Wimp$ScrapDir WWW.Netsurf.log for I/O redirection' You could have closed the logfile without rebooting using Ian Hamilton's CloseIt - that would have worked! If you don't have it, get it would be my advice. Right. Never met the problem before. Brian
dv #1012 continous loop alt/break freeze
Hi Of late, when loading Pluto mail with HTML content, sometimes rendering fails to complete, goes into a loop, and Alt/Break freezes the machine. A7000+ OS 4.02
dv #960 unusual behaviour
I always use, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen following each new development version as a test page. Usually there is never a problem. However, latterly, the lower, horizontal, scrollbar is significantly compressed with lots of blank page off screen. Everything else seems to rendered OK. Keep up the good work. Much appreciated!
Re: dv #960 unusual behaviour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen the lower, horizontal, scrollbar is significantly compressed with lots of blank page off screen Should be fixed as of CI build #963. It is and thank very much you for your quick response.
Re: avaaz.org problem
When sending a petition to avaaz.org http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_frankenfish_r/?blOZUcbv=21102 NetSurf goes into a loop. alt-break froze the machine necessitating snip I just tried signing another at... http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Investigate_landgrabbers_in_Cambodia_and_remove_their_trade_privileges/?blWdqbbv=20972; re cambodian farmers just got an endless revolving circle gave up after a while. So my previous success was premature, it seems. Oh chagrine Well, something odd seems to be happening. I tried that URL which went into a loop for a while and came out at, http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Investigate_landgrabbers_in_Cambodia_and_remove_their_trade_privileges/ Same here. Perhaps it's something at hteir end, not a Netsurf problem. Thanks. Probably. As I recall, it didn't work that way previously. I got a little bit further through making a bit of a mild complaint. I got a message that indicates that it is a javascript problem
Re: NetSurf and Flash
What, please, is the current status of Flash working with NetSurf? The current state is that it will not work (we long ago disabled plugin support), and that we're never likely to have it. This isn't so much of a problem because Flash is slowly dying off anyway (much like Java). I see. Perhaps I have misunderstood how animation rendering is performed. I thought Flash was used on the dark side for animation rendering, eg http://www.jacquielawson.com/ various examples. Are you saying that just ain't possible on the RISC OS platform, please? B. -- bbai...@argonet.co.uk
Re: avaaz.org problem
When sending a petition to avaaz.org http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_frankenfish_r/?blOZUcbv=21102 NetSurf goes into a loop. alt-break froze the machine necessitating snip I just tried signing another at... http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Investigate_landgrabbers_in_Cambodia_and_remove_their_trade_privileges/?blWdqbbv=20972; re cambodian farmers just got an endless revolving circle gave up after a while. So my previous success was premature, it seems. Oh chagrine Well, something odd seems to be happening. I tried that URL which went into a loop for a while and came out at, http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Investigate_landgrabbers_in_Cambodia_and_remove_their_trade_privileges/ Same here. Perhaps it's something at hteir end, not a Netsurf problem. Thanks. Probably. As I recall, it didn't work that way previously.
NetSurf and Flash
What, please, is the current status of Flash working with NetSurf? A search doesn't come up with anything particularly edifying. My copy is 0.411.1.1 29 Nov 2004 I guess it's a case of don't hold your breath.
avaaz.org problem
When sending a petition to avaaz.org http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_frankenfish_r/?blOZUcbv=21102 NetSurf goes into a loop. alt-break froze the machine necessitating a ctrl-break re-set. RISC OS 4.02 A7000+ NetSurf #816
Re: BBC news site misbehaving.
In article 6162c5f452.pnyo...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk, Peter Young pnyo...@ormail.co.uk wrote: I have just downloaded #672 and ran it. I was horrified at the hash it made of my homepage, which is http://m.bbc.co.uk/news I reverted to #671, and it looks the same there. It renders perfectly in Windows Firefox. The same sort of rubbish is visible on our local BBC Gloucestershire site, so presumably the BBC web-people think they've been clever again. I rather incline to thinking that it's hardly worth raising a bug report on this, but will do so if people think it's worth it. In the meanwhile, I've changed my homepage. Looks OK here, Peter - #671
r13362 'seriour error' bug
'serious error' at http://www.trustedreviews.com/images/
Re: r13362 'seriour error' bug
'serious error' at http://www.trustedreviews.com/images/ Correction. I was in too much of a hurry there in reporting an error. Several sites were involved doing a Google search, only /one/ of which was http://www..trustedreviews.com The log is a available.
Re: r13362 'seriour error' bug
Hi John The log is a available. Please send it to me. Fixed in r13365. Great. Thanks. John-Mark.
Re: Fetching.BadType
On 23 Dec 2011 as I do recall, Brian Bailey wrote: From time to time, when accessing a website, I see Fetching.BadType. What is the significance of this information, please? I believe it indicates an image which, when fetched, turns out not to be the type the server declared it to be (e.g. a GIF served with an image type of JPEG). Certain Windows browsers ignore the image type information and only look at the filename Thanks. No - see correction from JMB! ?? Not received here. ??
Fetching.BadType
From time to time, when accessing a website, I see Fetching.BadType. What is the significance of this information, please?
Re: Fetching.BadType
From time to time, when accessing a website, I see Fetching.BadType. What is the significance of this information, please? I believe it indicates an image which, when fetched, turns out not to be the type the server declared it to be (e.g. a GIF served with an image type of JPEG). Certain Windows browsers ignore the image type information and only look at the filename Thanks.
r13135
Please note, error message when accessing https://riscosopen.org/wiki/documenerror:tation/show/New%20users%27%20FAQ error:14077458:SSL routines:SSL23__GET_SERVER_HELLO:reason(1112)
Re: r13135
In article 522f06c602ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk, cj ch...@chris-johnson.org.uk wrote: Please note, error message when accessing https://riscosopen.org/wiki/documenerror:tation/show/New%20users%27%20FAQ error:14077458:SSL routines:SSL23__GET_SERVER_HELLO:reason(1112) I assume the url is not what is given above. Aaccht, the url got scrambled copying across from comp.sys.acorn.misc thread 'Some observations from a RISC OS newbie', I didn't notice. However, when corrected, it still gives the above error.
Re: Search oddity on r13075 (plus at least 1 version prior)
When I try and search for text on a web page, the dialogue box accepts the first letter and then disappears are searches for just that letter. Exactly the same behaviour here, r13078. Does anyone else have this issue? (Iyonix on both 5.16 and 5.17) 4.02 It works correctly on the default homepage. Not here.
Re: puzzling email (getting OT)
[snip] Anyway this is getting off-topic here; should it be continued on the MPro list? Not really, Peter. Well, not yet anyway! For a start I don't use MessengerPro. I suspected I would get a response similar to yours. The problem is that I frequently get messages that are treated by Pluto as HTML attachments, plus graphics files also as attachments. Most of these are dross and don't concern me too much, they just don't matter, but some are commercially important and I should very much like to see them rendered correctly when loaded into NetSurf, so it is functionally a cross application problem, as well as a cross platform problem. I got into a real tangle with a business person. Neither of us could read/render correctly each others HTML files, sent to and from each other via email, cross platform, and it mattered. The situation was extremely frustrating and was never resolved. Tempers were starting to get a bit frayed. Regards Brian
Re: puzzling email
I ran the html file which was with the message, which appears as an attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an attachment to the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of. NetSurf has full support for BMP images. Thanks, John. Noted, but NetSurf clearly doesn't like this one. For us to be able to debug this issue, we need the following: 1) What filetype does Pluto give the BMP file? (69c) 2) Please email me the log file from NetSurf's attempt to load the HTML document in question OK, John I will re-run it and send logfile as requested. 3) Please email me both the HTML and BMP files in question Wilco. Bit busy at the moment, but will get back to you. Without _all_ of the above, there is precisely nothing we can do to help. So you /are/ regarding it as a bug. Thanks, Ditto! Brian
Re: puzzling email
I ran the html file which was with the message, which appears as an attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an attachment to the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of. OK. But an html message or web page shouldn't contain BMP images. On what basis shouldn't it, please? It's the first time I've seen a BMP file employed in this way. If this is likely to become a more common procedure then surely NetSurf developers would wish to know, yes? I expect that Internet Explorer might open them, but then it'll handle URLs containing backslashes. So the problem lies with whatever lump of shit (Outlook Express?) sent the message. I'm not surprised that NetSurf barfed at it. Your correspondent could do with a little education too. Not my problem. It was commercial, thus drawing my attention to the event.
Re: puzzling email
In article 52240dc1act...@netsurf-browser.org, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: In article 522408c273bbai...@argonet.co.uk, Brian Bailey bbai...@argonet.co.uk wrote: OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The bitmap you sent me renders fine here. It does here as well, in retrospect, in ChangeFSI, but originally I had no reason to do it that way. John-Mark meant it renders fine in NetSurf, which has its own routines for BMP decoding[1]. I was unaware of that. It would seem that applied to others, too. Whatever ChangeFSI does is not going to affect NetSurf. I never thought that it would. That was a discrete exercise in itself. [1] http://www.netsurf-browser.org/projects/libnsbmp/
Re: puzzling email
[biggish snip} Not my problem. It was commercial, thus drawing my attention to the event. Would there be any point in telling a suit that he's sending out files in formats he /perhaps/ shouldn't? Only if you can tell him he's losing potential sales. Well, in a round about way he was losing potential sales, but not for that reason. I had long ago decided that his product was a total pain. 8-) Unfortunately there is no easy way (under RISC OS) to reliably create html attachments with embedded images which work in Pluto/NetSurf, without wrapping them up in a zip file. Merely attaching a web page and its images to a message doesn't work: the links in the HTML have to be correctly written and this is done by windoze and other software if it's used correctly. I suspect simple attachments were attempted by the sender. Not NetSurf's fault. Sorry for long post. No worries, Tim. All grist to the mill.
puzzling email
Hi I just got an email from i4imaging which included a file oleO.bmp which NetSurf didn't like very much declaring BadType as it was fetching and processing. Said file didn't seem to render. Are bmp file a no go area, perhaps? Cheers
Re: r13025 storming downloads and page rendering
Hi guys I don't know what you doing but I'm getting storming downloads and page rendering with r13025. Thanks. Keep up the good work. Put very crudely, there seems to be a speed increase of about 30% to download and render pages with current version. Now using r13044.
r13025 storming downloads and page rendering
Hi guys I don't know what you doing but I'm getting storming downloads and page rendering with r13025. Thanks. Keep up the good work. Cheers 8-)
r12975 NetSurf failure -serious error
Accessing the testbuilds page gives a serious error and NetSurf then quits. I remember it did that with r12551! Cheers
Re: r12975 NetSurf failure -serious error
Accessing the testbuilds page gives a serious error and NetSurf then quits. I remember it did that with r12551! Now moved to r13000; error not repeated. Cheers
microptimisations
Just a brief observation. Those microptimisations are showing a discernible, finite improvement in reducing file loading times on my old, slow machine. Small, certainly, but an improvement nonetheless. I load a favourite file every so often to see what effect, if any, the various updates might be having. Keep up the good work - much appreciated.
Re: microptimisations
In article 520eaceb0et...@netsurf-browser.org, Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: [snip] Later, with r12763, my favourite page in Wikipedia loaded a whole lot faster /except/ a large chunk of the page was missing. What's the URL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen Chosen because it usually takes a long time to fetch and render. A re-draw was successful with the whole page loaded and an increase in page rendering. Not sure exactly what you mean here. ie. the complete page was loaded/rendered after clicking on the page fetch and re-draw icon. I have just called up the particolar URL page again and the page loaded faultlessly, this time. Cheers
Permajet website
Would some kind soul have a look at Permajet's website www.permajet.com please. Netsurf doesn't seem to be displaying the page tabs correctly. Are the tabs really supposed to be like that? Cheers
Re: Permajet website
Would some kind soul have a look at Permajet's website www.permajet.com please. Netsurf doesn't seem to be displaying the page tabs correctly. Are the tabs really supposed to be like that? No. On Safari 5.1 and Firefox 6.0 on Mac's Lion the upper row of tabs 'appear' to be behind the lower row. It all looks very sensible. Umm, that's what I concluded. I have noticed strange, similar 'overlaps' on other sites from time to time. Can this 'feature' be fixed, please? Mostly it doesn't matter very much but from time to time this 'feature' occludes pertinent, vital material. Cheers.
r12551 NetSurf failure -serious error
Accessing - Test Builds - NetSurf fails on serious error. Using A7000+ and RISC OS 4.02 Cheers
Re: r12551 NetSurf failure -serious error
Accessing - Test Builds - NetSurf fails on serious error. Using A7000+ and RISC OS 4.02 Not here it didn't, on OS4.04. It did fall over with just that error when presented with plain text. The latest test build is now 12561, and does not mind text. Couldn't get past r12551 on the Test Build page and went back to r12505, then accessed Test builds and loaded r12561, which seems to work OK. Hope that helps. I think that it did, thanks. 8-)
Re: r12551 NetSurf failure -serious error
Couldn't get past r12551 on the Test Build page and went back to r12505, then accessed Test builds and loaded r12561, which seems to work OK. It is worth having a copy of the last stable version to hand, just in case. http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/riscos/ I agree, it is worth it and I have a copy. But, r12505 was the last Test Build saved just before getting away for a short break.
Re: logging
Hi John [snip] Ok. Have you tried Vince's suggestion? Thanks for reminding me, Mark. I tried that suggestion some time ago but was unable to draw any conclusion. However, I will give it a longer test now. I have being trying that suggestion since your email and there does seem to be an improvement. However, I am now using vv r12147 and note the SNV comments, but also note that -v remains in the !Run file, which shows Revision: 11204. Is that an anomaly or is that line inert, because there seem to have been a further improvement with r12147? Brian
Re: logging
Hi John [snip] Ok. Have you tried Vince's suggestion? Thanks for reminding me, Mark. I tried that suggestion some time ago but was unable to draw any conclusion. However, I will give it a longer test now. I have being trying that suggestion since your email and there does seem to be an improvement. However, I am now using vv r12147 and note the SNV comments, but also note that -v remains in the !Run file, It would; r12147 contained changes to the Windows frontend only. which shows Revision: 11204. Is that an anomaly or is that line inert, That is the last revision in which the !Run file changed. Well, OK, it just seems faster, irrespective! Brian
Re: fancy listing of local directories
In article 9a7ec1ba51@nails.abbeypress.net, Jim Nagel nets...@abbeypress.co.uk wrote: downloaded and installed r12139 just now. glad to see the nice display of a local directory is back. it was introduced in Netsurf 2.6 but for some reason had disappeared by r12041, but it's back now. to see what i mean, try file:///adfs::4 to see your own root directory. pretty. Yes, indeed, so it does. Very Nice! Brian
Re: fancy listing of local directories
In article 51baf1ef4ebbai...@argonet.co.uk, Brian Bailey bbai...@argonet.co.uk wrote: In article 9a7ec1ba51@nails.abbeypress.net, Jim Nagel nets...@abbeypress.co.uk wrote: downloaded and installed r12139 just now. glad to see the nice display of a local directory is back. it was introduced in Netsurf 2.6 but for some reason had disappeared by r12041, but it's back now. to see what i mean, try file:///adfs::4 to see your own root directory. pretty. Yes, indeed, so it does. Very Nice! Amazing! Just for the hell of it I've been loading various files from within the root directory, rendered within NetSurf, no bother. Like a large ArtWorks file, then saved the image out of NetSurf, to a directory, and then ran it in ArtWorks perfectly!! I was kind of expecting things to go wrong. Brian
Re: HSBC
Hi Peter Just to report that the HSBC on-line baking site appears not to work with NetSurf since it changed yesterday. Not a NetSurf bug, merely it looks as if it's stuffed with JavaScript. What a pain! I know, I know, Peter, The NatWest on-line baking site isn't working too well either! Brian
Re: logging
In article 1300871205.7641.16.camel@duiker, John-Mark Bell j...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: [snip] I guess that I must accept that my machine /is/ rather slow. But, as I am retired I can make endless cups of tea whilst things happen. 8-) I'm not sure you've told us what your machine is or what led you to believe that turning off logging would help. An A7000+. I didn't believe anything at all really, I just wanted to know. A bit like mt Everest I suppose, because it was there! Ok. Have you tried Vince's suggestion? Thanks for reminding me, Mark. I tried that suggestion some time ago but was unable to draw any conclusion. However, I will give it a longer test now. Brian
Re: logging
In article 20110321163550.gg4...@rjek.com, Rob Kendrick r...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: [snip] I am intrigued by the successive improvement and development of Netsurf. Periodically I load a personal favourite page in Wikepedia, just to see what changes are apparent in performance. It would seem that loading and rendering of that page does indeed vary. To what extent can one expect verbose logging to slow things down (I use a rather slow machine, which I am not going to change this side of Christmas). Is it possible to turn verbose logging on/off. Not tested, but in the !Run file near the bottom is the following line: Run NetSurf$Dir.!RunImage -v %*0 2Wimp$ScrapDir.WWW.NetSurf.Log If you put a | before the Wimp$ScrapDir.WWW.NetSurf.Log that should disable the logging. With a copy of r12120, I put a | before -v in the expectation that logging would be completely turned off. Three lines only were recorded in the log file, related to fonts, in this case. Unless their is anything in the Netsurf code itself that expects to write to the log it should work, but I'm offering no guarantees. Remove the -v flag. That is what enables verbose logging. Note that this simply stops NetSurf formatting and emitting the log data. It will still involve checking do I need to log this? Thanks, Rob. I also removed the -v flag, without putting an | anywhere. NetSurf seemed to be entirely stable in both cases. As far as I could tell, there was no discernible, subjective change in time in loading and rendering files, in either case. I guess that I must accept that my machine /is/ rather slow. But, as I am retired I can make endless cups of tea whilst things happen. 8-) Brian
Re: logging
In article 1300785359.7641.12.camel@duiker, John-Mark Bell j...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: [snip] Remove the -v flag. That is what enables verbose logging. Note that this simply stops NetSurf formatting and emitting the log data. It will still involve checking do I need to log this? Thanks, Rob. I also removed the -v flag, without putting an | anywhere. Commenting out bits of the !Run file using | is pretty much guaranteed to end in tears. Please don't do this. OK, I won't, in future. It was a kind of one off thing. Additionally, disabling logging totally defeats the point of us asking for log files when you report a bug. I realised that, thanks, but wanted to see if logging had any significant effect on file loading and rendering. Equally, if it had worked logging could also be turned back on again in extremis. NetSurf seemed to be entirely stable in both cases. As far as I could tell, there was no discernible, subjective change in time in loading and rendering files, in either case. It would be; logging simply isn't a significant proportion of runtime. NetSurf spends the vast majority of its time doing the things you'd expect (namely, fetching and rendering web pages). Yes, I now realise! I guess that I must accept that my machine /is/ rather slow. But, as I am retired I can make endless cups of tea whilst things happen. 8-) I'm not sure you've told us what your machine is or what led you to believe that turning off logging would help. An A7000+. I didn't believe anything at all really, I just wanted to know. A bit like mt Everest I suppose, because it was there! Um, I am unlikely to replace my machine until hell freezes over and I just wondered if it could be provoked into making NetSurf a smidgion faster. Brian
Re: logging
In article afd383b751.ke...@talktalk.net, Kevin Wells kevinwe...@talktalk.net wrote: In message 51b749bbd1bbai...@argonet.co.uk Brian Bailey bbai...@argonet.co.uk wrote: I am intrigued by the successive improvement and development of Netsurf. Periodically I load a personal favourite page in Wikepedia, just to see what changes are apparent in performance. It would seem that loading and rendering of that page does indeed vary. To what extent can one expect verbose logging to slow things down (I use a rather slow machine, which I am not going to change this side of Christmas). Is it possible to turn verbose logging on/off. Not tested, but in the !Run file near the bottom is the following line: Run NetSurf$Dir.!RunImage -v %*0 2Wimp$ScrapDir.WWW.NetSurf.Log If you put a | before the Wimp$ScrapDir.WWW.NetSurf.Log that should disable the logging. Thanks, Kevin. I was looking for something like that but just couldn't see it. I'll give it a go. Hope that it doesn't explode! Unless their is anything in the Netsurf code itself that expects to write to the log it should work, but I'm offering no guarantees. Just out of interest, could someone clarify, please.
logging
I am intrigued by the successive improvement and development of Netsurf. Periodically I load a personal favourite page in Wikepedia, just to see what changes are apparent in performance. It would seem that loading and rendering of that page does indeed vary. To what extent can one expect verbose logging to slow things down (I use a rather slow machine, which I am not going to change this side of Christmas). Is it possible to turn verbose logging on/off. Just out of interest, could someone clarify, please.
Re: r12044 - frames 'overlap' one another
In article d1fe7ab451.br...@bhowlett.plus.net, Brian Howlett brian.gro...@brianhowlett.me.uk wrote: On 15 Mar, Brian Bailey wrote: http://www.aeseus.com/lists/index.php?p=subscribeid=1 Not in r12062... I agree. However, that URL is the one that is loaded following a request to access Aeseus site with personal details to subscribe, which I am unwilling to detail here. The page that I saw originally is completely different from the one now being loaded. Pass.
Re: RISC OS SW Show 2011
In article 51b33b8d4c...@timil.com, Tim Hill t...@timil.com wrote: In article b31936b351.kbar...@orpheusnet.co.uk, Erving erv...@riscos.org wrote: From: Brian Bailey bbai...@argonet.co.uk Date: 12 Mar 2011 In article mpro.lhxxmn0y307vp.n...@pittdj.co.uk, David Pitt n...@pittdj.co.uk wrote: snip Like this?? http://www.a4com.de/riscos/46auto/Medium/P9271641.JPG ^ ^^^ I wonder how this got changed? It took me ages to spot why this link did not work, so easy to see what you expect, not what is actually there! I know exactly how. JPG is not in Brian Bailey's Pluto spell check dict. Perhaps next time he needs to add JPG to his dictionary instead of just hitting return and taking whatever alteration the program suggests! That's interesting! It's not the first time it's happened but I don't at all recall hitting return in either case and hadn't noticed either later. And, Pluto didn't protest either. However, be assured that JPG is now in Pluto dictionary as you suggest. Thank you. Mangled URLs are not uncommon. Going back to the Original posting often sorts it. Noted.
Re: r11929 not downloading properly
In article 381c18b151.zen44...@zen.co.uk, Simon Smith simon_sm...@zen.co.uk wrote: In message 51b10f8d4cbbai...@argonet.co.uk Brian Bailey bbai...@argonet.co.uk wrote: The above version now downloads latest test build as file format A91 not Archive/zip (ddc) file which won't open. a91 is the custom filetype for ZIP, isn't it? If you say so Simon - personally, I had no idea. 8-) Have you updated or altered your mimemap settings recently? Tim Hill made a new version available a few days ago. Indeed that's exactly what I did yesterday and thought that it just might give me problems. But as you will have observed from my report I didn't associate the apparent changed behaviour of NetSurf downloads with the mimemap file. Fixes: 1) Manually change a91 back to ddc, then things will work as they used to (drag and drop onto the SparkFS icon will probably do that automatically) This fix will work indefinitely until you have a permanent solution. 2) Revert to your previous mimemap 3) Update Spark/SparkFS or whatever compression program you use so that it associates a91 with zip 3) is the 'most correct' of those options. With SparkFS it's reasonably straightforward, but you do have to edit the right file. With other programs, the execution may be slightly different. Whichever way you do it you might have to tweak a boot or a run or a config file somewhere. The Spark/SparkFS docs do clearly tell you what setting to adjust. Many thanks for the information, Simon. I will act on your advice. You lives and learns - well, some of the time!
Re: r11929 not downloading properly
In article 4d7727ea.5030...@heter.co.uk, Philco phi...@heter.co.uk wrote: On 09/03/2011 04:49, Simon Smith wrote: In message51b10f8d4cbbai...@argonet.co.uk Brian Baileybbai...@argonet.co.uk wrote: The above version now downloads latest test build as file formatA91 not Archive/zip (ddc) file which won't open. a91 is the custom filetype for ZIP, isn't it? Have you updated or altered your mimemap settings recently? Tim Hill made a new version available a few days ago. Apologies for missing this, but have you a link for Tim Hills Mimemap Certainly, Mimemap 20110307 www.timil.com/riscos/mimemap
Re: Bug report r11881
In article 20110303091516.ga4...@rjek.com, Rob Kendrick r...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 08:57:37AM +, Brian Bailey wrote: It is unacceptable on a text only email list, 'period'. Get off my back, David. What right have you got to set yourself up as some kind of self-appointed autocratic politburo watchdog. In truth, none! Brian: David's right, you shouldn't have sent the log as an attachment to all the people on the list. Thank you Rob. I am aware of the convention re attachments. But, for the record I think that what is being done with NetSurf is of considerable importance to RISC OS and, without feeling I have to justify myself, it seemed to me to be /wholly/ appropriate to make a shortcut past what appeared to me to be a comletely impenetrable barrier. However, I will not put up with other people's petty tyranny. I am just too old, too tired and too bloody ill to do so. So, I don't think that David is right. There are courteous ways of doing things which oil the wheels, so to speak, rather than standing on the touch line and yelling 'foul' in an abrasive and unhelpful way. I worked in the nuclear industry, with many highly qualified engineers, scientists, chemists and mathematicians (some of them were just awesome and were held in high regard. They were also to a man, and woman, courteous and helpful), where progressively it became a culture where for every person trying to do a very demanding job there were eight other people breathing down their necks telling them to do it another way. I got thoroughly pissed off with it. I don't, now that I am retired, have to put up with it any more. David: Your horse is far too high. Cut its legs off, or get off it.
Re: Bug report r11881
In article 1299186875.22897.12.camel@duiker, John-Mark Bell j...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 08:59 +, Brian Bailey wrote: In article 1299137718.22897.9.camel@duiker, John-Mark Bell j...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 06:13 +, Brian Bailey wrote: I haven't a clue why that was so, but I have found a copy of the original file which does seem to contain the error report, that is, to my inexpert eyes. Perhaps you would care to say how you wish to receive said file! Please send it directly to me. Thanks, Many thanks for your helpful reply. I will do that. Fixed in r11898. Great! Many thanks. Brian
Re: Bug report r11881
In article 1299097649.22897.1.camel@duiker, John-Mark Bell j...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 16:09 +, Brian Bailey wrote: I dunno, I couldn't get the bug report page to work for me, I'll probably get shouted at for doing things this way! 8-) Actually, bits of that page I couldn't understand. Clicking a photo image line in URL http://www.steamtraingallerries.latest_photos.html I get error message 'serious error' with a complete crash, using RISC OS 4.02 on an A7000+ Error Log scrap file attached. Unfortunately, the error log you attached is not from the crash, so we have no useful information to go on. Oh! Well, I can only say, Oh? That was the only error log available to me and NetSurf crashed. I plead not guilty, but perhaps with a touch of insanity. 8-) John.
Re: Bug report r11881
In article 37a8e2ad51.r...@user.minijem.plus.com, Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote: On 2 Mar 2011 Brian Bailey wrote: On 2 Mar 2011 John-Mark Bell wrote: Unfortunately, the error log you attached is not from the crash, so we have no useful information to go on. Oh! Well, I can only say, Oh? That was the only error log available to me and NetSurf crashed. I plead not guilty, but perhaps with a touch of insanity. 8-) Did you run NetSurf again before saving the log? I truly can't remember, but I don't think I did. I have large dollop of not understanding at the moment. It doesn't look as though you did much at all apart from maybe opening a file on disc. I have to agree that is what it looks like, it certainly doesn't look at all like the file that I had intended to save. I didn't open the file again once it had been attached to the email. I see no reason to have done that and I never do so in the normal run of things. Damn! Thank you for your courtesy in bringing that to my attention, Richard. I'll have to wait until it happens again, though how I should report any further bugs is a moot point, that is without fear of falling in the dreadful maws of the thought police! Cheers.
Re: Bug report r11881
In article 1299097649.22897.1.camel@duiker, John-Mark Bell j...@netsurf-browser.org wrote: On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 16:09 +, Brian Bailey wrote: I dunno, I couldn't get the bug report page to work for me, I'll probably get shouted at for doing things this way! 8-) Actually, bits of that page I couldn't understand. Clicking a photo image line in URL http://www.steamtraingallerries.co.uk/latest_photos.html Now, corrected my apologies for the misquote. I get error message 'serious error' with a complete crash, using RISC OS 4.02 on an A7000+ Error Log scrap file attached. Unfortunately, the error log you attached is not from the crash, so we have no useful information to go on. I haven't a clue why that was so, but I have found a copy of the original file which does seem to contain the error report, that is, to my inexpert eyes. Perhaps you would care to say how you wish to receive said file! I am now using r11893 and have had a good poke around on the above URL without any further, apparent difficulty. John.
r11644
Hi All I really look forward eagerly to each upgrade to NetSurf and very much appreciate the effort put in by the dedicated few, but I am more than a little baffled by the above modification. What is its purpose, please? Clearing the background to white and the redraw 'seems' to take ages. Cheers Brian
Re: r11644
In article mpro.lgk2k204hzm9s01kl.li...@stevefryatt.org.uk, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote: On 13 Feb, Brian Bailey wrote in message 51a4df40f4bbai...@argonet.co.uk: I really look forward eagerly to each upgrade to NetSurf and very much appreciate the effort put in by the dedicated few, but I am more than a little baffled by the above modification. What is its purpose, please? The background needs to be cleared to a known state at some point, unless the subsequent redraw is guaranteed to fill the whole area. NetSurf's doing the job itself, which is usually far less intrusive than asking the Wimp to do it for us. I see, but in practice, from what I am seeing here, the reverse is true. I don't know the background behind r11644, but I'd imagine that there's a pretty good reason for the change. Well, yes, so I would have thought. Clearing the background to white and the redraw 'seems' to take ages. Can you give us an example site that shows this and tell us what hardware and screen mode you're using? Yes, sorry, I forgot to do that. The NetSurf homesite www.netsurf-browser.org/ springs to mind. A7000+ hardware and AKF60 256 colours 1024x768 60Hz. Again, I can't see a problem here: there's no visible flicker with the new build. Ooo, it doesn't just flicker, it hangs for at least 4 secs.
Re: r11644
In article mpro.lgk2k204hzm9s01kl.li...@stevefryatt.org.uk, Steve Fryatt li...@stevefryatt.org.uk wrote: On 13 Feb, Brian Bailey wrote in message 51a4df40f4bbai...@argonet.co.uk: I really look forward eagerly to each upgrade to NetSurf and very much appreciate the effort put in by the dedicated few, but I am more than a little baffled by the above modification. What is its purpose, please? The background needs to be cleared to a known state at some point, unless the subsequent redraw is guaranteed to fill the whole area. NetSurf's doing the job itself, which is usually far less intrusive than asking the Wimp to do it for us. Without at all fully understanding what you have said, it does, to my mind, beg the question, if the Wimp is perhaps faster and perhaps more more efficient, in this case, then why ask NetSurf to do the job? Just asking! I don't know the background behind r11644, but I'd imagine that there's a pretty good reason for the change. Clearing the background to white and the redraw 'seems' to take ages. Can you give us an example site that shows this and tell us what hardware and screen mode you're using? Again, I can't see a problem here: there's no visible flicker with the new build. Ah, now I understand what I have been observing. On my machine, OS 4.02, there was a momentary flicker prior to r11644. Never gave it a thought before.
Re: r11644
In article 513201a551.r...@user.minijem.plus.com, Richard Porter r...@minijem.plus.com wrote: On 13 Feb 2011 Michael Drake wrote: In article 51a4df40f4bbai...@argonet.co.uk, Brian Bailey bbai...@argonet.co.uk wrote: Clearing the background to white and the redraw 'seems' to take ages. Please try r11667 or later. Thanks Michael, that seems to be a lot better now, perhaps even a smidgen faster redraw than prior to r11644. r11668 is no better. Hi Richard, you are running OS 6.16 - yes? I think your hardware should perhaps be faster than the legacy machine that I am using. I wonder if there are other factors to be taken into account?
