I have a PHP generated publicly accessible web document with which
Netsurf (29 March) reveals weird behaviour. The URL is
It is only a 2kbyte document - plus style sheets and a few small graphics
- which validates against the W3C validation server.
Netsurf retrieves the document and, in the blink of an eye, states
'completed' (possibly because I am in the same building as the server of
course) - but 'completed' it reveals nothing visible - every other browser
(ten of them at least) handle the document happily - including all the RISC
OS ones I have (they don't of course find the style sheet though).
I can save the document to an html file and it contains what I would
have expected (exactly what the PHP should have generated). Try to 'full
save' the document and this appears to work - provided there is no space in
the name by which it is saved.
Unfortunately the full save produces a run and a sprite file - but
does not save the document in the directory.
Try to save as text or draw actually fail to happen!
In a sense, the full save/draw/text saves are consistent I suppose -
but now comes the weirdo. Having done the 'document only' save to a
suitable directory - it saves as an html file - double clicking on that
brings up a Netsurf window which produces a visible document - without
styles or graphics, of course.
If you have your browser set to check security certificates then try
the same URI as http:// ... - a different document with the same behaviour
Might this have something to do with the document being served
(correctly) as 'application/xhtml+xml'?? That could, I suppose, result in
the blank document, but surely the 'full save' should still have worked
irrespective of the media type when served?
Over to you!
[PGP key available if desired]
In message <4d554d7a56lists-nospam(a)vigay.com>
pv <lists-nospam(a)vigay.com> wrote:
> In article <gemini.ie9r6w00b6a8i0194.druck(a)druck.org.uk>,
> David J. Ruck <druck(a)druck.org.uk> wrote:
> > In which case your upstream provider will be logging them all.
> Which is irrelevant because they have no way of knowing which user account
> the traffic corresponds to. All they would see is data going to aa63 (or
Surely you'd know which account had which IP address at a particular time?
> whatever) and there's no way I would divulge customer information to
> *anyone* irrespective of reason.
So if the police asked you to reveal the identiy of a possible child
molester. You'd go to prison rather than tell the police his/her account
Largest collection of Triops information on the Internet.
In message <20050330041425.2B264135DE(a)sc8-sf-spam2.sourceforge.net> you wrote:
> Today's Topics:
> 1. UK government websites "access keys" (Martin Angove)
> I've never heard of this before, but on perusing this website:
> I found the following:
> <p>This website uses the UK government access keys system. To navigate
> using your keyboard, please hold down your <strong>'Alt'</strong> key
> (Windows) or '<strong>Ctrl'</strong> Key (Apple Machintosh) and press
> the relevant key from the following list. If you are using an Internet
> Explorer browser, you will then need to press
> <p><a href="/index.html" accesskey="1">1 - Home</a><br>
> <a href="/press/press_home.html" accesskey="2">2 - Press
> part of the <a href> tag. Is there any chance of this being supported
> under Netsurf?
As a webdesigner who always uses accesskeys I find it disappointing that no RISC OS browsers support it. It is part of HTML, so I hope it wouldn't be hard to support it in Netsurf.
Mark Syder (like the drink but spelt different)