In article <50a9e71c50.pnyoung(a)pnyoung.ormail.co.uk&gt;, Dr Peter Young <pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk&gt; wrote: So there must be a differnce in the settings between you and I that is causing a problem. Should we investigate? Or maybe we should both send our choices to a developer? -- Richard Torrens. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!

In article <50a9e71c50.pnyoung(a)pnyoung.ormail.co.uk&gt;, Dr Peter Young <pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk&gt; wrote: Nor here with RO 6.14 and r6035. -- David Wild using RISC OS on broadband www.davidhwild.me.uk

In article <501ceafb6ebarry(a)e-allen.me.uk&gt;, Barry E Allen <barry(a)e-allen.me.uk&gt; wrote: That looks like it's suffering from the same problem as a friend of mine's website at www.colinandrews.net which is completely unreadable with NetSurf - and I have complained to him about it. Unfortunately he knows nothing about HTML so I think he uses some kind of site creator to do it in - which means that I expect lots of other people will be creating sites which give the same problem when viewed with NetSurf. -- Using, programming and promoting RISC OS - the most productive computer system in the world. Check it out now, and change your view of computers!! To reply/email, visit http://www.riscos.org/feedback/ There are two words in the English language that have all five vowels in order: "abstemious" and"facetious."

In article <20090113095326.589ebb30(a)trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net&gt;, Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org&gt; wrote: The tools in this case declare themselves as: Yahoo! SiteBuilder/2.6/1.6.0_07 and DOC1Emfe Microsoft Windows John -- || John Williams || Brittany, Northern France Who is John Williams? http://www.picindex.info/author/ E-mail replies only accepted from RISC OS machines or RISC in subject line Somewhere nice to stay in Brittany? http://petit.four.free.fr/visitors/locate

In article <20090113095326.589ebb30(a)trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net&gt;, Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org&gt; wrote: www.torrens.org.uk/NetSurf/0001.html one minimal page that shows the problem. As it seems to be settings dependant, the same directory holds a copy of my !Boot.Choices.Users.Single.WWW.NetSurf.Choices and a screen shot of the Netsurf window as it renders. Hope this helps. Keep up the good work! -- Richard Torrens. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!

Torrens (lists) wrote on 13 Jan: the page displayed fine here (Netsurf build r5991). then i compared Choices: font_size: mine 140 yours 160 default 128 font_min_size: mine 100 yours 120 default 85 i increased mine to match yours, and got the same problem as you. perhaps you could decrease the fontsize you specify and instead use "scale view" (F11, and possibly save as default). -- Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk Abbey Press 32 Norbins Rd (01458) 83 3603 Glastonbury BA6 9JG pocket 0797 415 3861

In article <501cf6213eLists(a)Torrens.org.uk&gt;, Torrens (lists) <Lists(a)Torrens.org.uk&gt; wrote: Thank you for the test case. Now we know what the problem is. (CSS white-space support isn't really implemented.) Cheers, Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/

In article <501cf68db3tim(a)timil.com&gt;, Tim Hill <tim(a)timil.com&gt; wrote: Looking at various rogue sites (or rather sites which NetSurf won't render) it looks like the browser should assume that any values without a unit are pixels (px) - but I reserve the right to be wrong. I don't have my reference books on CSS to hand at the moment. -- Using, programming and promoting RISC OS - the most productive computer system in the world. Check it out now, and change your view of computers!! To reply/email, visit http://www.riscos.org/feedback/ Divine love always has met, and always will meet, every human need.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:57:18 +0000 (GMT) Tim Hill <tim(a)timil.com&gt; wrote: No, but they should be completely ignored from the point of view of if it is acceptable for a web browser to incorrectly render them. (Opera recently did a survey that showed that less than 0.5% of websites have valid HTML; they don't have numbers for CSS. Only being able to render 0.5% of the web is not useful, and even then NetSurf will have bugs that means the correct ones won't render properly anyway. So yes, from the point of view of web browser development, the less they are mentioned the better.) There was some recent work to do this, but I don't recall off hand if it was towards our new CSS parser, or a patch to the old one (which we are currently still using, as the new parser is not ready yet.)

In article <501ceafb6ebarry(a)e-allen.me.uk&gt;, Barry E Allen <barry(a)e-allen.me.uk&gt; wrote: Both pages are specifying text positions. But surely Talktalk pay no heed to standards? How many errors do their pages return from the w3c validator? I recently joined Zen - because they are much recommended. However their pages do not validate and cannot be used on RISC OS. When I pointed this out to them their attitide was that Microsoft returned 300 odd errors, so the validation was useless. Their service is too expensive for support that cannot be used! I looked around a bit. Plus.net's pages validate with very few errors. I am in process of swapping to them - I have yet to find anything on Plus.net that doesn't work properly with Netsurf! Support is via the www site - but it works, and does get actioned. RISC OS users would save themselves trouble by using ISPs that took notice of standards! -- Richard Torrens. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!