Please reply to the list :)
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:37:47 +0100, Gavin Wraith wrote:
> > > I recently had occasion to make a scrolling banner for somebody's
> > > website. I used TextEffX 1.52 to create a sprite (408x56 pixels
> > > 16M colours, no mask, no palette) then SAMP 1.21 to produce more
> > > sprites of the same size for the animation, then Intergif 6.18 to
> > > create the animated gif. The result looked just like the original
> > > sprite when viewed with FireFox 7 on a Windows XP machine, but
> > > rather different when viewed with NetSurf r12786 on an Iyonix
> > > (RO 5.16). Does this mean a bug in Libnsgif?
> > A link to the file in question would be incredibly useful if you would
> > like this checked/fixed!
> Yes of course. It is the gif banner under the top header strip at
> http://www.bloomsteins.co.uk/ that says "Buyers of scrap gold and silver"
> and "Sellers of investment gold". Looking at it in 1280x1024x16M with
> NetSurf r12786 what I see are:
> # Different thickness of the two 'l's in "Sellers"
> # Last column of pixels missing in the 'S' of "Sellers"
> # Different thickness of the 'i' and the 'l' in "silver"
> # Missing first column of pixels of 'g' in "scrap gold"
> In fact most of the wonky effects seem to be down to missing columns
> of pixels. It looks as it should with FireFox 7. Another error is a
> stray white column of pixels, and an isolated white pixel showing up
> during the transition between the messages.
I can see a stray dot on the left and column of pixels on the far
right. The letter widths look OK to me. I tried opening it in
another GIF viewer and it looks fine (but curiously missing a couple
of frames there), so this does indeed appear to be a bug in libnsgif
Please can you raise it as a proper bug report so it doesn't get lost.
I recently had occasion to make a scrolling banner for somebody's
website. I used TextEffX 1.52 to create a sprite (408x56 pixels
16M colours, no mask, no palette) then SAMP 1.21 to produce more
sprites of the same size for the animation, then Intergif 6.18 to
create the animated gif. The result looked just like the original
sprite when viewed with FireFox 7 on a Windows XP machine, but
rather different when viewed with NetSurf r12786 on an Iyonix
(RO 5.16). Does this mean a bug in Libnsgif?
Has anybody else noticed this phenomenon?
Gavin Wraith (gavin(a)wra1th.plus.com)
Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/
I have the Octopus CallerID program running on an A7000+ (a local
geographical convenience) to monitor my 'phone line.
A script generates, via the network (using roscli), an HTML page in NetSurf
on the Iyonix to tell me writ large who, or what number, is calling.
Unfortunately this firstly generates a blank page in NetSurf. Recently this
blank page generates the error:
Warning from NetSurf
and the above curious code also appears with odd characters replacing the
queries in the bottom bar of the empty window.
Unfortunately this warning box resists the efforts of the NoError utility
module to close it, and the content doesn't appear in SysLog's WIMP log
like it might with other multitasking programs.
Really, I should improve my script to avoid the empty window being
generated, but I am curious as to what, if anything, this warning message
actually means and as to how helpful it is to have it appear in this
on a page with several links, the colour of a link used to change to
indicate it had already been visited -- which was a good idea.
is it just my imagination, or has this ceased to work?
i'm using the latest test build (r12740), having noticed the lack of
colour change on r12670 earlier today.
the "visited link" indication would be especially helpful at the
moment while i'm sifting through a couple of pages of Google results
to find the best version of some information i need.
the problem seems to manifest on XP Firefox too, not just Netsurf.
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
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.