The following bytes were arranged on 25 Sep 2014 by Rob Kendrick :
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:38:07PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
So I click go back.
And there is a blank page expecting me to fill in ALL the info again.
Gr.
This is a problem with NetSurf, not the bug tracker. Modern
On 27/09/14 10:30, Martin Bazley wrote:
The correct response to invalid input in a form is to display
the form again, with the input the user just submitted, and the
offending fields highlighted and annotated, not to redirect to a blank
(and uninformative) error page and rely on a convenience
Jim Nagel wrote on 25 Sep:
Tried to log in to Mantis just now to report this bug, but no luck.
So I'll post the problem here while it's fresh in mind.
Sorted out the Mantis login problem, thanks to Vince Sanders.
So I duly logged in and filled in a formal bug report; clicked Submit.
Mantis
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:38:07PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
Jim Nagel wrote on 25 Sep:
Tried to log in to Mantis just now to report this bug, but no luck.
So I'll post the problem here while it's fresh in mind.
Sorted out the Mantis login problem, thanks to Vince Sanders.
So I duly
Rob Kendrick wrote on 25 Sep:
Did you say Netsurf 3.2 or 3.2 ?
The former. Is Mantis not robust enough to cope with both?
But upon doublechecking my iconbar, I find I'm wrong. I'm using 3.1
(Dev Cl #1718) on this Iyonix. Must be one of my other machines
where I have 3.2 -- will check.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 03:01:14PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
Rob Kendrick wrote on 25 Sep:
Did you say Netsurf 3.2 or 3.2 ?
The former. Is Mantis not robust enough to cope with both?
It's robust in the sense that it detected you gave it nonsense rather
than inserting inconsistent data into
On 25 Sep 2014, Rob Kendrick r...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 02:38:07PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
Jim Nagel wrote on 25 Sep:
[snip]
I had said Netsurf 3.2.
Did you say Netsurf 3.2 or 3.2 ?
'Product version' leads to a drop-down menu, which doesn't contain the
Tony Moore wrote on 25 Sep:
'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that the '#' should be
omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an error.
Is robust the right word when I say I think software should be
robust enough to anticipate such variations in user input
On 25 Sep 2014, Jim Nagel nets...@abbeypress.co.uk wrote:
Tony Moore wrote on 25 Sep:
'Reported in CI build #' doesn't make it clear that the '#' should
be omitted from the answer. If the '#' is included, Mantis posts an
error.
Is robust the right word when I say I think software should
On 25 Sep 2014, Rob Kendrick r...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
[snip]
... somebody on netsurf-user will still end up asking why it refuses
Net Surf Version Three small dot thing 2.
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate
10 matches
Mail list logo
