 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in Suggestions/Bug Reports. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Suggestions/Bug Reports - Blocking layouts. |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 3097/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Zem Hmm, hadn't thought of that.  |
|||
|
Jesper Busy, busy, busy. Level: 69  Posts: 1857/2390 EXP: 2856000 For next: 13743 Since: 03-15-04 From: Sweden. Since last post: 176 days Last activity: 79 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ElricWrongheaded thinking. Menu's for board navigation or for tasks applying to your user account. Rest of page is for context-sensitive tasks. Profile links for doing things to the user, or viewing things about or by the user. Links around posts should be links about the post, not the user, the thread, the forum, or the user's dog Hank. Yes, I know Mark as read is in the menu. It's the only thing that is in the menu on these policies and it's dumb. It should be elsewhere. In fact, I will personally move it elsewhere after I write this post. Edit: Moved. Can you find it?  I understand why Acmlm put it there in the first place - there's no solid spot on the index page for it, and it'd be stupid to have it in the menu on one page and not in the menu on the other page.(edited by Jesper on 02-07-05 02:24 PM) |
|||
|
Vystrix Nexoth Level: 30 Posts: 256/348 EXP: 158678 For next: 7191 Since: 03-15-04 From: somewhere between anima and animus Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Neko-ArekusuchanAssuming this is even the fault of Firefox, then that's one minor point, and furthermore is a problem with the page and not really of the browser itself (layouts in general can be disabled). That still doesn't account for all the other shortcomings of MSIE, such as lack of tabbed browsing, longer load time (it takes less time to open a new tab in FX than a new window in MSIE), weaker security (let's make MSIE more than just a viewer, let's make it a remote program execution environment via ActiveX!) that's tied to the heart of the operating system, lack of proper CSS support, lack of proper PNG support, lack of configurability... I'll take the occasional stalled layout over that any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Originally posted by Neko-Arekusuchan
Those things said, is this a problem with how stylesheets are linked in, e.g. is it a problem with one of these two methods?
If so, I'll check that my layout at least uses the preferred method (if it's not already) and could make the same recommendation to others. [Edit: 0x100th post! ](edited by Vystrix Nexoth on 02-07-05 05:04 PM) |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 3145/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Vystrix Nexoth Hell, by that logic, IE at V6.0 is more advanced than Windows itself at V5.1.  |
|||
FreeDOS Lava Lotus Wannabe-Mod :< Level: 59 Posts: 1078/1657 EXP: 1648646 For next: 24482 Since: 03-15-04 From: Seattle Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| The problem lies with Firefox itself, not the board. It's because it wants to download the CSS file it was just requested to get. But the server on the other end is either slow or down... So Firefox takes up to 30 seconds to load it or it moves on. In my opinion, it should be move on then load it. If you have a problem, submit it to Mozilla's Bugzilla. And Xkeeper, don't think that one problem with Firefox puts IE on top "again". It doesn't. Hyperhacker, Windows Server 2003 is NT5.2. One point higher than your WinXP. Plus, that's just the NT line. The 16/32-bit line of Win 1.0 - Me were entirely different environments/OSes separate from NT, even though Microsoft tried to keep compatibility good between them. |
|||
Emptyeye Real American Level: 67 Posts: 1436/2273 EXP: 2488421 For next: 104451 Since: 05-24-04 From: I DUNNOOOOOOOO!! Since last post: 9 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by FreeDOS Actually, as I understand it (And I may have read wrong), the problem lies with the XHTML standard that Firefox tries to follow, which says to STOP PARSING THE PAGE after it encounters an error of this type. This, to me, is a case where standards support isn't necessarily a good thing, because the standard itself is flawed. |
|||
|
Vystrix Nexoth Level: 30 Posts: 262/348 EXP: 158678 For next: 7191 Since: 03-15-04 From: somewhere between anima and animus Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| Emptyeye: first of all, this board uses HTML (or a hacky facsimile thereof), not XHTML, so your point does not apply. However, the reason it says to stop parsing XHTML the moment a syntax error is discovered is because that is a requirement of XHTML's host language, XML (and therefore applies to all XML applications, not just XHTML). And why do you consider it a bad thing to disallow syntax errors? As it is, HTML will look at a broken page and say "ohhhhh, okayyyy, fine, I'll allow it" (which implicitly tells the author that his/her code is correct when in fact it is not) whereas XML (hence XHTML) will duly inform the author if his/her error and afford him/her a chance to correct it. That's not a bad thing: it makes it easier to parse XML and enforces cluefulness in those who write it. For the sake of example, suppose your average programming language (such as C++) were more lax about syntax errors. It's an arduous-enough journey compiling correct (syntax-wise) code, let alone all manner of vagaries that it would have to accomodate were it more permissive. I for one see no problem in disallowing incorrect code (for a standard that enforced this from its very inception), because such code is, after all, incorrect. Naturally this is not a feasable course to follow for HTML (because of the sheer ubiquity of clueless code) but, as noted, XML (hence XHTML) has enforced syntactically-correct code from its very inception, and it is not a requirement I would like to see waived. |
|||
|
Zem You can be civil without being flowery, dipshits. Level: 49 Posts: 723/1107 EXP: 829398 For next: 54485 Since: 06-13-04 Since last post: 131 days Last activity: 131 days |
| ||
| Also: a broken link is not a syntax error. The standard does NOT specify that XHTML should no longer be parsed after a broken link; after all, most of the use of an image's alt attribute is when the image fails to load. | |||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 3217/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| The real problem comes when a server responds but doesn't send any data. Mozilla seems to just wait forever when that happens. Anyone else notice the new link?  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Suggestions/Bug Reports - Blocking layouts. |
| | |
