Re: strange code inserted in Sea Monkey
Ed Mullen wrote: Ray_Net wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: John wrote: I am composing a webpage in the composer app (which it had a way to publish files to the FTP server without me using a FTP app) but anyways I did a copy and paste form Word and this is what I got. Version:1.0 StartHTML:000273 EndHTML:024343 StartFragment:003103 EndFragment:024307 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/jwolf6589/Documents/Microsoft%20User%20D ata/Saved%20Attachments/What%20does%20the%20Bible%20say%20about%20the%20L ord%C2%B9s%20Day.doc Honoring the Sabbath or Lord¹s Day What is that? If you do Edit - Paste Without Formatting in the Normal tab of Composer you'll just get plain text. Word produces non-standard HTML and should /never/ be used to create Web pages. If the page in Word is simple ... Word can be used to save the file if you choose the (page web(.htm) filtered) format. It still produces non-standard HTML and won't validate. Try it yourself: http://validator.w3.org/ But, It's not because a page validates that this page can be seen correctly with all browsers ... ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Password non activ for site with login and password
S. Beaulieu a écrit : denewton a écrit : Thank for the aswer, but that is very unconfortable and why that run not always the same way for all site ? Because not all sites are programmed the same way nor use the same security features. S. Hello, But with firefox there isn't not the same dificulty : Seamonkey isn't programed as FF. Bertrand ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: strange code inserted in Sea Monkey
Ed Mullen wrote: Daniel Barclay wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: ... And, by the way, it's not just purists or hobbyists who design to be compliant with the W3C recommended standards: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A//www.ibm.com/us/en/ Unfortunately, IBM doesn't seem to understand how/why to avoid making fixed-width web pages... Daniel How does it not work in some spedified browser? Actually, it's not an issue of browser (software) differences, but of usage differences. The way it doesn't work is that users have to scroll back and forth horizontally to see the content more often than they would have to if the pages didn't set fixed widths and did let the browser exercise its normal feature of adjusting the page's layout to try to fit the user's chosen browser window width. (And when the width of a text column is fixed at some width wider than the user's chosen browser window width, then the user has to scroll back and forth horizontally once for _each_ line of text to read it.) Yes, you won't notice that if you simply use one full-screen browser window on a relatively large screen. However, if instead you want to use your screen space to see two or three windows you can see at the same time (say, a browser window to read some page, and then an editor window to take notes or an e-mail window to comment about the page), you'll notice the problem. Consider that IBM page at http://www.ibm.com/us/en/ (at least how it's formatted right now). The set of tabs and their nested links don't shrink and stretch (horizontally) when you change the width of the browser window. So even though their content (that amount of text) could fit in a fairly narrow window, it doesn't, and so you'd have to scroll horizontally more than you'd otherwise have to. (It seems that IBM set a fixed width somewhere. A similar problem is tying the width of text columns to fixed-width items such as big images. Even if some fixed-size content (e.g., a big image) is too wide to be seen in the user's browser window scrolling, the user shouldn't have to scroll around horizontally to see the content that isn't inherently of a fixed size.) Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: strange code inserted in Sea Monkey
Phillip Jones wrote: Daniel Barclay wrote: ... Unfortunately, IBM doesn't seem to understand how/why to avoid making fixed-width web pages... Daniel That doesn't just apply to IBM. Of course. I was just addressing the example at hand. Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: strange code inserted in Sea Monkey
Ray_Net wrote: ... But, It's not because a page validates that this page can be seen correctly with all browsers ... True, but it if a page doesn't validate, it's much more likely to display differently--and the page author has no room to complain (about browser differences) because he or she hasn't written in the form you're supposed to give browsers. Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Password Characters
This may be of interest to those who pass out passwords for others to
use. (Presumably we all can cope with our own passwords. {grin})
MS uses alphanumeric characters in its Product ID codes (those strings
of 5 groups of 5 characters each, 25 in all). I got a new product
with a normal MS ID code but included in the paperwork was list of 12
characters MS never uses - EUL AOS IZN 105 - I assume to avoid
customer misreading of the characters.
It has been been fun to guess why any character causes a problem.
Though MS always prints codes in upper case they may well consider
that some people are bound to try lower case - and that presents the
rationale for some of the 12.
--
JohnW-Mpls
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Password Characters
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
This may be of interest to those who pass out passwords for others to
use. (Presumably we all can cope with our own passwords. {grin})
MS uses alphanumeric characters in its Product ID codes (those strings
of 5 groups of 5 characters each, 25 in all). I got a new product
with a normal MS ID code but included in the paperwork was list of 12
characters MS never uses - EUL AOS IZN 105 - I assume to avoid
customer misreading of the characters.
It has been been fun to guess why any character causes a problem.
Though MS always prints codes in upper case they may well consider
that some people are bound to try lower case - and that presents the
rationale for some of the 12.
OK, I can see the potential for confusion when scribbling eight of these
(O/0, S/5, L/1/I, Z/2 -- though 2 isn't excluded). Any ideas for the
other four (EUAN)? They don't spell Apple...
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Password Characters
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
This may be of interest to those who pass out passwords for others to
use. (Presumably we all can cope with our own passwords. {grin})
MS uses alphanumeric characters in its Product ID codes (those strings
of 5 groups of 5 characters each, 25 in all). I got a new product
with a normal MS ID code but included in the paperwork was list of 12
characters MS never uses - EUL AOS IZN 105 - I assume to avoid
customer misreading of the characters.
It has been been fun to guess why any character causes a problem.
Though MS always prints codes in upper case they may well consider
that some people are bound to try lower case - and that presents the
rationale for some of the 12.
--
JohnW-Mpls
...12 characters, or GROUPS of characters? for ex.: I could see EUL
being confused with the acronym for End User License.
Also some code isn't case specific...it's likely due to some standard or
respect for industry reserved strings/combinations.
--
- Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
