9:25 p.m.
Hi
I just got an email from i4imaging which included a file oleO.bmp which
NetSurf didn't like very much declaring BadType as it was fetching and
processing. Said file didn't seem to render. Are bmp file a no go area,
perhaps?
Cheers
9:59 p.m.
In article <5223956cc4bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk>,
Brian Bailey <bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk> wrote:
I just got an email from i4imaging which included a file oleO.bmp
which
NetSurf didn't like very much declaring BadType as it was fetching and
processing. Said file didn't seem to render. Are bmp file a no go area,
perhaps?
A BMP file made with DPIngScan loads fine, so your file is probably faulty
- or, as sometimes happens, has the wrong file extension perhaps (?).
My BMP file starts with the characters 'BM' as viewed in a text editor.
John
12:10 a.m.
John
> I just got an email from i4imaging which included a file
oleO.bmp which
> NetSurf didn't like very much declaring BadType as it was fetching and
> processing. Said file didn't seem to render. Are bmp file a no go area,
> perhaps?
A BMP file made with DPIngScan loads fine, so your file is probably
faulty - or, as sometimes happens, has the wrong file extension perhaps
(?).
My BMP file starts with the characters 'BM' as viewed in a
text editor.
Thanks for that. It does indeed start with 'BM' but I'm mostly sure that
it wasn't generated with DPIngScan. Bound to be from the dark side,
really, but it does beg the question how many other BadFile types might
there be lurking out there?
I've had something similar happen before but ignored it!
Brian
12:54 a.m.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 04:10:32PM +0100, Brian Bailey wrote:
John
> > I just got an email from i4imaging which included a file oleO.bmp which
> > NetSurf didn't like very much declaring BadType as it was fetching and
> > processing. Said file didn't seem to render. Are bmp file a no go area,
> > perhaps?
> A BMP file made with DPIngScan loads fine, so your file is probably
> faulty - or, as sometimes happens, has the wrong file extension perhaps
> (?).
> My BMP file starts with the characters 'BM' as viewed in a text editor.
Thanks for that. It does indeed start with 'BM' but I'm mostly sure that
it wasn't generated with DPIngScan. Bound to be from the dark side,
really, but it does beg the question how many other BadFile types might
there be lurking out there?
I've had something similar happen before but ignored it!
Brian
It is most likely that your application has saved the bitmap with a
data filetype. NetSurf (correctly) converts the RO data filetype to
the application/octet-stream MIME type which will not be considered as
anything beyond binary data that cannot be interpreted.
Additionally if the bitmap is small you might try opening a bug on the
bugtracker and placing it there to be examined as without it no-one can
make any sensible determination.
And *not* specific to this report, just using it as an opportunity:
Please, PLEASE, there are only a very small number of use working on
NetSurf. Can users read
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html and follow its
advice. Also http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html is worth a
read but be aware of the offensive language in that one.
We welcome bug reports, however, hand-wavy reports take a
disproportionately large amount of time to answer so you run the risk
of simply never receiving a reply.
--
Regards Vincent
1:01 a.m.
My BMP file starts with the characters 'BM' as viewed in a
text editor.
It does indeed start with 'BM' but I'm mostly sure that
it wasn't
generated with DPIngScan. Bound to be from the dark side, really, but it
does beg the question how many other BadFile types might there be
lurking out there?
It's not a 'bad file type' any more that DOC is a bad file type.
BMP is a Windows Bit MaP file. It's not very efficient, but nor is a
SpriteFile.
If you can't read that file, then either the file is corrupt (easy enough
with e-mail) or you haven't got ImageFS (or whatever you use) set up to
convert BMP files.
Regards
--
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk
2:03 a.m.
In article <5223a930a9john(a)jaharrison.me.uk>, John Harrison
<john(a)jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:
> My BMP file starts with the characters 'BM' as viewed
in a text
> editor.
[Snip]
If you can't read that file, then either the file is corrupt
(easy
enough with e-mail) or you haven't got ImageFS (or whatever you use)
set up to convert BMP files.
The OP indicated that NetSurf was being used, therefore presumably its
own routines?
Could it be a .bmp format not currently understood by NetSurf?
I say this because NS seems quite tolerant to corruption! If you take a
.bmp file and delete a chunk in !Edit (or similar) you will see that
although corrupted, the file will often display in NetSurf when other
programs can complain that the file is corrupt.
T
--
Tim Hill
..............................................................
www.timil.com
4:11 a.m.
> > My BMP file starts with the characters 'BM' as
viewed in a text
> > editor.
[Snip]
> If you can't read that file, then either the file is corrupt
(easy
> enough with e-mail) or you haven't got ImageFS (or whatever you use)
> set up to convert BMP files.
The OP indicated that NetSurf was being used, therefore presumably
its
own routines?
Exactly so. My comment was neither a bug report nor 'arm wavy', just
noting a characteristic/behaviour of netSurf.
I very much appreciate there are limited resources available for NetSurf
development, but I am really not in any position to judge whether
rendering a BMP file, or not, is of any real significance, thus my
comment.
I am just glad that development seems to be going so well as it is, IMHO.
Could it be a .bmp format not currently understood by NetSurf?
That's what I assumed.
I say this because NS seems quite tolerant to corruption! If you take
a
.bmp file and delete a chunk in !Edit (or similar) you will see that
although corrupted, the file will often display in NetSurf when other
programs can complain that the file is corrupt.
Brian
6:54 a.m.
Could it be a .bmp format not currently understood by NetSurf?
I just created a test html file that included a BMP image, and made an
interesting discovery.
If ImageFS2 has its action for BMP files set to Inactive, then NetSurf
renders the BMP image on the page.
But if ImageFS2 has its action for BMP files set to Active (which is the
normal state for most files on my machine) then NetSurf doesn't render the
image on the page (unless it has already done so).
Regards
--
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk
5:33 a.m.
On 17 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey wrote:
I just got an email from i4imaging which included a file oleO.bmp
which
NetSurf didn't like very much declaring BadType as it was fetching and
processing. Said file didn't seem to render. Are bmp file a no go area,
perhaps?
Could that be because NetSurf is a web browser and isn't designed to
handle Windows BMP files? Why were you trying to load it into NetSurf?
Wouldn't an image processing app like !DPlngScan be more appropriate?
--
Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
mailto:ricp@minijem.plus.com
I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
5:56 a.m.
> I just got an email from i4imaging which included a file
oleO.bmp which
> NetSurf didn't like very much declaring BadType as it was fetching and
> processing. Said file didn't seem to render. Are bmp file a no go area,
> perhaps?
Could that be because NetSurf is a web browser and isn't designed
to
handle Windows BMP files? Why were you trying to load it into NetSurf?
Wouldn't an image processing app like !DPlngScan be more appropriate?
No, not really.
I ran the html file which was with the message, which appears as an
attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an attachment to
the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of.
6:15 a.m.
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 21:56 +0100, Brian Bailey wrote:
I ran the html file which was with the message, which appears as an
attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an attachment to
the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of.
NetSurf has full support for BMP images.
For us to be able to debug this issue, we need the following:
1) What filetype does Pluto give the BMP file?
2) Please email me the log file from NetSurf's attempt to load the HTML
document in question
3) Please email me both the HTML and BMP files in question
Without _all_ of the above, there is precisely nothing we can do to
help.
Thanks,
John-Mark.
6:34 a.m.
On 17 Oct 2011 John-Mark Bell wrote:
NetSurf has full support for BMP images.
You're right it does!
--
Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
mailto:ricp@minijem.plus.com
I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
3:03 p.m.
New subject: Not working on woman's hour again
Using version 2.8 (18th Septemeber)and going to the correct location,
which worked before, it shows the correct information for a few
seconds, then quits. I saved the failure log to my temp directory, I
loaded infozip onto the iconbar, I dragged the saved log to it,
Infozip changed from "Idle" to "Busy" and then quit with this failure
message.
Infozip (Zipping) (Taskwindow)
zip warning: missing end signature--probably not a zip file (did you
zip warning: remember to use binary mode when you transferred it?)
zip error: Zip file structure invalid
(ADFS::HardDisc4.$.Private.Temp.Log)
Michael Bell
--
3:37 p.m.
> I ran the html file which was with the message, which appears as
an
> attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an attachment
> to the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of.
NetSurf has full support for BMP images.
Thanks, John. Noted, but NetSurf clearly doesn't like this one.
For us to be able to debug this issue, we need the following:
1) What filetype does Pluto give the BMP file?
(69c)
2) Please email me the log file from NetSurf's attempt to load
the HTML
document in question
OK, John I will re-run it and send logfile as requested.
3) Please email me both the HTML and BMP files in question
Wilco. Bit busy at the moment, but will get back to you.
Without _all_ of the above, there is precisely nothing we can do to
help.
So you /are/ regarding it as a bug.
Thanks,
Ditto!
Brian
5:43 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 07:37 +0100, Brian Bailey wrote:
> 3) Please email me both the HTML and BMP files in question
Wilco. Bit busy at the moment, but will get back to you.
OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The bitmap you
sent me renders fine here.
What is happening is that Pluto fails to rewrite the image reference in
the HTML document, so NetSurf attempts to fetch a file that doesn't
exist, and instead builds an error page, which then generates the
BadType report.
This is not something that can be fixed in NetSurf as essentially the
source document is wrong.
John-Mark.
6:25 p.m.
> > 3) Please email me both the HTML and BMP files in question
>
> Wilco. Bit busy at the moment, but will get back to you.
OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The bitmap you
sent me renders fine here.
It does here as well, in retrospect, in ChangeFSI, but originally I had no
reason to do it that way. I assumed that, never having seen a bmp file in
this context before, it shouldn't really have been there anyway.
What is happening is that Pluto fails to rewrite the image reference
in
the HTML document, so NetSurf attempts to fetch a file that doesn't
exist, and instead builds an error page, which then generates the
BadType report.
Right. Well, that /is/ a bit fundamental, isn't it!
This is not something that can be fixed in NetSurf as essentially
the
source document is wrong.
Understood.
Thanks,
Brian
7:19 p.m.
In article <522408c273bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk>,
Brian Bailey <bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The bitmap
you
> sent me renders fine here.
It does here as well, in retrospect, in ChangeFSI, but originally I
had
no reason to do it that way.
John-Mark meant it renders fine in NetSurf, which has its own routines for
BMP decoding[1]. Whatever ChangeFSI does is not going to affect NetSurf.
[1] http://www.netsurf-browser.org/projects/libnsbmp/
--
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
7:25 p.m.
... NetSurf, which has its own routines for BMP decoding[1].
Whatever
ChangeFSI does is not going to affect NetSurf.
However, the test that I did showed that with ImageFS2 running on the
machine, its settings did affect what NetSurf did.
I don't know enough about the mechanics to know whether would or would not
be expected.
Regards
--
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk
7:36 p.m.
In article <52240e39c2john(a)jaharrison.me.uk>,
John Harrison <john(a)jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:
> ... NetSurf, which has its own routines for BMP decoding[1].
Whatever
> ChangeFSI does is not going to affect NetSurf.
However, the test that I did showed that with ImageFS2 running on
the
machine, its settings did affect what NetSurf did.
If I remember correctly ImageFS2 transparently interferes somehow,
converting other formats to Sprite before they get to the target
application. So if you turn ImageFS2 on for BMP files perhaps NetSurf is
getting given Sprite data but still trying to deal with it with its BMP
handler instead of the Sprite handler.
--
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
7:38 p.m.
On 18/10/2011 11:25, John Harrison wrote:
> ... NetSurf, which has its own routines for BMP decoding[1]. Whatever
> ChangeFSI does is not going to affect NetSurf.
However, the test that I did showed that with ImageFS2 running on the
machine, its settings did affect what NetSurf did.
I don't know enough about the mechanics to know whether would or would not
be expected.
It is expected as ImageFS fundamentally affects the way foreign image
files on disc are handled by applications.
Without ImageFS, it is up to the individual application to decide if it
can handle a foreign image file type, and then attempt to render it
using its own code.
With ImageFS, the application does not see a foreign image file, but a
directory containing a sprite. When it loads this sprite ImageFS will
attempt to convert the foreign format to a sprite, which the application
can render using standard OS routines.
In this case Pluto is saving the HTML and a BMP file from an email to a
temporary directory, and NetSurf will attempt to load it when rendering
the HTML. If ImageFS is active it will bypass NetSurfs BMP handling.
Cheers
--
David J. Ruck
email: druck(a)druck.org.uk
phone: +44(0)7974 108301
12:55 a.m.
In article <52240dc1actlsa(a)netsurf-browser.org>,
Michael Drake <tlsa(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
In article <522408c273bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk>,
Brian Bailey <bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The
bitmap you
> > sent me renders fine here.
> It does here as well, in retrospect, in ChangeFSI, but
originally I had
> no reason to do it that way.
John-Mark meant it renders fine in NetSurf, which has its own
routines
for BMP decoding[1].
I was unaware of that. It would seem that applied to others, too.
Whatever ChangeFSI does is not going to affect NetSurf.
I never thought that it would. That was a discrete exercise in itself.
12:02 a.m.
John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 07:37 +0100, Brian Bailey wrote:
[HTML from an email renders without the BMP graphic]
OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The bitmap you
sent
me renders fine here.
What is happening is that Pluto fails to rewrite the image reference
in
the HTML document, so NetSurf attempts to fetch a file that doesn't exist,
and instead builds an error page, which then generates the BadType report.
It's a long time since I used Pluto, but my recollection is that it doesn't
treat HTML attachments any differently to any other type of attachment: You
double click on it, a temporary copy is saved and that's filer_run.
It doesn't parse the HTML in any way to see if any other attached files are
needed by it, so they aren't saved alongside it - and therefore, as you say,
the images references aren't rewritten.
The bottom line, for users of Pluto, is that if you want to see attached
images displayed in the HTML, you'll need to save and manually edit. (Remote
images should be fine, of course).
--
Soft Rock Software: http://www.softrock.co.uk
Vince M Hudd: http://misc.vinceh.com/about-vinceh/
RISCOSitory: http://www.riscository.com
4:51 p.m.
[snip]
It's a long time since I used Pluto, but my recollection is that
it
doesn't treat HTML attachments any differently to any other type of
attachment: You double click on it, a temporary copy is saved and that's
filer_run.
It doesn't parse the HTML in any way to see if any other attached
files
are needed by it, so they aren't saved alongside it - and therefore, as
you say, the images references aren't rewritten.
The bottom line, for users of Pluto, is that if you want to see
attached
images displayed in the HTML, you'll need to save and manually edit.
(Remote images should be fine, of course).
Vince, I should be glad of further clarification. My understanding is that
MessengerPro doesn't behave significantly differently from Pluto when it
comes to handling HTML, but maybe I'm out of date because MessengerPro has
been subject to further development whereas Pluto hasn't. I see that you
use the former and should be interested to learn if that too is subject to
the same problems the affect Pluto, please. It may well be crunch time for
me entailing a reluctant swap to MessengerPro.
Brian
5:42 p.m.
New subject: puzzling email (getting OT)
On 20 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey <bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> It's a long time since I used Pluto, but my recollection is
that it
> doesn't treat HTML attachments any differently to any other type of
> attachment: You double click on it, a temporary copy is saved and that's
> filer_run.
> It doesn't parse the HTML in any way to see if any other
attached files
> are needed by it, so they aren't saved alongside it - and therefore, as
> you say, the images references aren't rewritten.
> The bottom line, for users of Pluto, is that if you want to see
attached
> images displayed in the HTML, you'll need to save and manually edit.
> (Remote images should be fine, of course).
Vince, I should be glad of further clarification. My understanding is
that
MessengerPro doesn't behave significantly differently from Pluto when it
comes to handling HTML, but maybe I'm out of date because MessengerPro has
been subject to further development whereas Pluto hasn't. I see that you
use the former and should be interested to learn if that too is subject to
the same problems the affect Pluto, please. It may well be crunch time for
me entailing a reluctant swap to MessengerPro.
MPro show HTML e-mails as an attempt to render the HTML in the body of
the message (usually quite a bit of a mess), with the HTML as an
attachment. You can then click on the attachment to load it into a
browser. It's a long time since I used Pluto, so I can't remember if
it does that; I do remember control-G to load the HTML into the
message window, and if MPro can do that, I haven't found out how.
One thing that MPro does, and I don't think Pluto does, is that if you
reply to or froward an HTML message, no matter if there are graphics
as attachments as well as the HTML, the resulting message is received
on the Dark Side as a standard HTML message. I haven't been able to
check this myself, but I've never had the usual Windows-users' whinge
that they can't read the message, as one gets when one replies
bottom-posted :-)
Anyway this is getting off-topic here; should it be continued on the
MPro list?
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / zfc Lu \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
and \/ __ __ \ England.
family / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
/ \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk
7:16 p.m.
New subject: puzzling email (getting OT)
[snip]
Anyway this is getting off-topic here; should it be continued on the
MPro list?
Not really, Peter. Well, not yet anyway! For a start I don't use
MessengerPro.
I suspected I would get a response similar to yours.
The problem is that I frequently get messages that are treated by Pluto as
HTML attachments, plus graphics files also as attachments. Most of these
are dross and don't concern me too much, they just don't matter, but some
are commercially important and I should very much like to see them
rendered correctly when loaded into NetSurf, so it is functionally a cross
application problem, as well as a cross platform problem.
I got into a real tangle with a business person. Neither of us could
read/render correctly each others HTML files, sent to and from each other
via email, cross platform, and it mattered. The situation was extremely
frustrating and was never resolved. Tempers were starting to get a bit
frayed.
Regards
Brian
8 p.m.
New subject: puzzling email (getting OT)
On 20 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey <bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Anyway this is getting off-topic here; should it be continued on
the
> MPro list?
Not really, Peter. Well, not yet anyway! For a start I don't use
MessengerPro.
I suspected I would get a response similar to yours.
The problem is that I frequently get messages that are treated by
Pluto as
HTML attachments, plus graphics files also as attachments. Most of these
are dross and don't concern me too much, they just don't matter, but some
are commercially important and I should very much like to see them
rendered correctly when loaded into NetSurf, so it is functionally a cross
application problem, as well as a cross platform problem.
I got into a real tangle with a business person. Neither of us could
read/render correctly each others HTML files, sent to and from each other
via email, cross platform, and it mattered. The situation was extremely
frustrating and was never resolved. Tempers were starting to get a bit
frayed.
Yes, as in the bit that is snipped, MPro seems to be able to reply to
or forward HTML messages in a way that Windows users can read. It
sounds as if this may be the deciding point.
Best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / zfc Lu \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
and \/ __ __ \ England.
family / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
/ \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk
8 p.m.
New subject: puzzling email (getting OT)
In article <5225151bf7bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk>,
Brian Bailey <bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk> wrote:
I got into a real tangle with a business person. Neither of us
could read/render correctly each others HTML files, sent to and
from each other via email, cross platform, and it mattered.
... but this is still the province of the mail reader/sender software
and not a browser problem (unless the html contains important content
as javascript which isn't being rendered).
--
Chris Johnson
9:13 p.m.
New subject: ROOL to NetSurf (RISC OS) developers
Hi,
RISC OS Open would like to contact the current RISC OS NetSurf developers
(off the mailing list). Who should we email?
Many thanks,
Steve
--
Steve @ PlusNet
9:37 p.m.
New subject: ROOL to NetSurf (RISC OS) developers
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:13:57PM +0100, Ste (PlusNet) wrote:
Hi,
RISC OS Open would like to contact the current RISC OS NetSurf developers
(off the mailing list). Who should we email?
Firstly, by not replying to a thread that many people have killed
because it was painfully off topic :)
Depending on the subject, one of:
webmaster(a)netsurf-browser.org
hostmaster(a)netsurf-browser.org
help(a)netsurf-browser.org (tech support for those terrified of
mailing lists.)
security(a)netsurf-browser.org
ukdev(a)netsurf-browser.org (UK-based developers)
committee(a)netsurf-browser.org (society committee, reaches
chairman, treasurer and secretary.)
B.
6:52 p.m.
Brian Bailey <bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
[...]
I see that you use [Messenger Pro]
I use Messenger Pro for Windows, which is a different beast, so I'm afraid
you'll have to ask someone else (and somewhere more appropriate) to find out
how the RISC OS version handles HTML attachments.
--
Soft Rock Software: http://www.softrock.co.uk
Vince M Hudd: http://misc.vinceh.com/about-vinceh/
RISCOSitory: http://www.riscository.com
6:34 p.m.
In article <mpro.lt9ogc00bji230270.vince(a)softrock.co.uk>,
Vince M Hudd <vince(a)softrock.co.uk> wrote:
The bottom line, for users of Pluto, is that if you want to see
attached
images displayed in the HTML, you'll need to save and manually edit.
(Remote images should be fine, of course).
I use !Pluto
I often receive attachments, usually jokes, where I see one attached file
with an HTML file type and a number of JPEGs, sometimes GIFFs. I
double-click on the HTML and a browser, Fresco of Netsurf, whichever has
been seen by the filer, loads and displays the HTML file with all the
images in the right place. No need for an intermediate save operation
--
Stuart Winsor
Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org
6:57 p.m.
lists <Stuartlists(a)orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
In article <mpro.lt9ogc00bji230270.vince(a)softrock.co.uk>,
Vince M Hudd <vince(a)softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> The bottom line, for users of Pluto, is that if you want to see
attached
> images displayed in the HTML, you'll need to save and manually edit.
> (Remote images should be fine, of course).
I use !Pluto
I often receive attachments, usually jokes, where I see one attached
file
with an HTML file type and a number of JPEGs, sometimes GIFFs. I
double-click on the HTML and a browser, Fresco of Netsurf, whichever has
been seen by the filer, loads and displays the HTML file with all the
images in the right place. No need for an intermediate save operation
Okay. I'm sure it didn't do that when I was using it, so maybe that's been
dealt with in an upgrade that came after I stopped. I'm not sure there were
many, and I thought mainly bug fixes (the way I remember it working wasn't a
bug, per se).
Or maybe I'm just remembering wrongly.
Either way, this is now off-topic.
--
Soft Rock Software: http://www.softrock.co.uk
Vince M Hudd: http://misc.vinceh.com/about-vinceh/
RISCOSitory: http://www.riscository.com
3:46 a.m.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:43:01 +0100, John-Mark Bell wrote:
What is happening is that Pluto fails to rewrite the image reference
in
the HTML document, so NetSurf attempts to fetch a file that doesn't
exist, and instead builds an error page, which then generates the
BadType report.
Should NetSurf perhaps be returning a "bad image" image instead of an
HTML error, if the request which causes the error to be generated was
expecting an object of type image/* ?
The same goes for web-hosted images and other objects which can't be
decoded or handled. Currently we show any ALT text, but a broken
image/unhandled content icon as well might make things a bit more
intuitive for the user.
Chris
6:35 a.m.
On 18/10/2011 19:46, Chris Young wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:43:01 +0100, John-Mark Bell wrote:
> What is happening is that Pluto fails to rewrite the image reference in
> the HTML document, so NetSurf attempts to fetch a file that doesn't
> exist, and instead builds an error page, which then generates the
> BadType report.
Should NetSurf perhaps be returning a "bad image" image instead of an
HTML error, if the request which causes the error to be generated was
expecting an object of type image/* ?
But if I understand the problem correctly, what is happening here is
that with ImageFS active the file ADFS::$.Somewhere.Image/BMP is no
longer a file, but a directory containing an sprite file. Therefore
NetSurf isn't just getting a broken link or bad image format, but is
being given a URL of a directory which is invalid HTML.
Cheers
---David
--
Email: druck(a)druck.org.uk
Phone: +44-(0)7974 108301
8:20 a.m.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:35:12 +0100, David J. Ruck wrote:
On 18/10/2011 19:46, Chris Young wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:43:01 +0100, John-Mark Bell wrote:
>
>> What is happening is that Pluto fails to rewrite the image reference in
>> the HTML document, so NetSurf attempts to fetch a file that doesn't
>> exist, and instead builds an error page, which then generates the
>> BadType report.
>
> Should NetSurf perhaps be returning a "bad image" image instead of an
> HTML error, if the request which causes the error to be generated was
> expecting an object of type image/* ?
But if I understand the problem correctly, what is happening here is
that with ImageFS active the file ADFS::$.Somewhere.Image/BMP is no
longer a file, but a directory containing an sprite file. Therefore
NetSurf isn't just getting a broken link or bad image format, but is
being given a URL of a directory which is invalid HTML.
I was referring to the case where ImageFS wasn't being used, and
NetSurf was legitimately reading corrupt or missing files. If you are
running patches that transpose files into directories containing other
files, then quite frankly I'm surprised it works at all.
Chris
6:19 a.m.
On 17 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey wrote:
I ran the html file which was with the message, which appears as an
attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an attachment to
the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of.
OK. But an html message or web page shouldn't contain BMP images. I
expect that Internet Explorer might open them, but then it'll handle
URLs containing backslashes. So the problem lies with whatever lump of
shit (Outlook Express?) sent the message. I'm not surprised that
NetSurf barfed at it.
Your correspondent could do with a little education too.
--
Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
mailto:ricp@minijem.plus.com
I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
8:35 a.m.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:19:56 +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
On 17 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey wrote:
> I ran the html file which was with the message, which appears as an
> attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an attachment to
> the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of.
OK. But an html message or web page shouldn't contain BMP images. I
expect that Internet Explorer might open them
Actually BMP files are pretty well supported by web browsers -
presumably mostly because favicons started out using BMP or ICO files.
Wikipedia has a reasonable table although the BMP column is incomplete
(NetSurf entry needs filling in!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#Image_format_support
I'd agree that BMP is an odd choice though...
I'm not surprised that NetSurf barfed at it.
NetSurf's BMP support is very complete/compatible from what I've seen.
It's certainly much better than the rubbish which comes with AmigaOS
:) (fortunately easily replaced with libnsbmp code)
Chris
3:29 p.m.
> I ran the html file which was with the message, which appears as
an
> attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an attachment
> to the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of.
OK. But an html message or web page shouldn't contain BMP images.
On what basis shouldn't it, please? It's the first time I've seen a BMP
file employed in this way. If this is likely to become a more common
procedure then surely NetSurf developers would wish to know, yes?
I expect that Internet Explorer might open them, but then it'll
handle
URLs containing backslashes. So the problem lies with whatever lump of
shit (Outlook Express?) sent the message. I'm not surprised that
NetSurf barfed at it.
Your correspondent could do with a little education too.
Not my problem. It was commercial, thus drawing my attention to the event.
7:38 p.m.
In article <5223f8af84bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk>, Brian Bailey
<bbailey(a)argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > I ran the html file which was with the message, which
appears as an
> > attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an
> > attachment to the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of.
> OK. But an html message or web page shouldn't contain BMP
images.
On what basis shouldn't it, please? It's the first time
I've seen a BMP
file employed in this way. If this is likely to become a more common
procedure then surely NetSurf developers would wish to know, yes?
Like an Acorn Sprite, a BMP is an /uncompressed/ proprietary format so it
is bad form to use them in web pages or in html emails. BMPs do work
though, as every browser seems to be able to render them. Usually. Some
web counters, for example, do use the BMP format but those are usually
tiny files which arguably don't matter so much.
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/tutorials/web_graphics/article.php/3479931/Ima...
Perhaps in the hiatus caused by compuserve's proprietary stance about
GIFs, and before PNGs were widespread, some people in fear of being sued
for using GIF may have turned to BMP instead (they are most likely using
windoze, after all). Sometimes they would have been better than 'the
other choice': there is little worse than somebody using a heavily
compressed JPEG for a graphic. Such as this:
http://openads.webmarketingpublications.co.uk/www/delivery/ai.php?filenam...
Blow that up and compare it to their graphic here:
http://openads.webmarketingpublications.co.uk/www/delivery/ck.php?n=0ddb8d1
It would seem that one web advertising company applies terrible lossy
compression to the ad you send them and makes your images look horrible.
TBH it often doesn't really matter if BMPs are used unless fools send
huge uncompressed photos in this way. You could be looking at a 30MB
instead of a 0.5MB download but generally its nothing to get worked up
about!
> I expect that Internet Explorer might open them, but then
it'll
> handle URLs containing backslashes. So the problem lies with whatever
> lump of shit (Outlook Express?) sent the message. I'm not surprised
> that NetSurf barfed at it.
If it was an HTML email then presumably the software simply embedded the
image the user threw at it. Hardly the program's fault, or do you expect
email software to process image file format translation to cope for
people who don't know the 'rules' better? ;-)
> Your correspondent could do with a little education too.
As could many Windoze Lusers. About everything. ;-D
Not my problem. It was commercial, thus drawing my attention to the
event.
Would there be any point in telling a suit that he's sending out files in
formats he /perhaps/ shouldn't? Only if you can tell him he's losing
potential sales.
Unfortunately there is no easy way (under RISC OS) to reliably create
html attachments with embedded images which work in Pluto/NetSurf,
without wrapping them up in a zip file. Merely attaching a web page and
its images to a message doesn't work: the links in the HTML have to be
correctly written and this is done by windoze and other software if it's
used correctly. I suspect simple attachments were attempted by the sender.
Not NetSurf's fault. Sorry for long post.
--
Tim Hill
..............................................................
www.timil.com
1:08 a.m.
[biggish snip}
> Not my problem. It was commercial, thus drawing my attention to
the
> event.
Would there be any point in telling a suit that he's sending out
files in
formats he /perhaps/ shouldn't? Only if you can tell him he's losing
potential sales.
Well, in a round about way he was losing potential sales, but not for that
reason. I had long ago decided that his product was a total pain. 8-)
Unfortunately there is no easy way (under RISC OS) to reliably
create
html attachments with embedded images which work in Pluto/NetSurf,
without wrapping them up in a zip file. Merely attaching a web page and
its images to a message doesn't work: the links in the HTML have to be
correctly written and this is done by windoze and other software if it's
used correctly. I suspect simple attachments were attempted by the
sender.
Not NetSurf's fault. Sorry for long post.
No worries, Tim. All grist to the mill.
8:42 a.m.
On 18 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey wrote:
> OK. But an html message or web page shouldn't contain BMP
images.
On what basis shouldn't it, please? It's the first time
I've seen a BMP
file employed in this way. If this is likely to become a more common
procedure then surely NetSurf developers would wish to know, yes?
I think that one's been answered for you. If you want to be sure that
the majority of browsers can display your images stick to GIF, JPEG
and PNG. I now realise that NetSurf does render BMPs so I don't know
why it doesn't like yours.
--
Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
mailto:ricp@minijem.plus.com
I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
8:48 a.m.
On 19 Oct 2011 Richard Porter wrote:
On 18 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey wrote:
>> OK. But an html message or web page shouldn't contain BMP
images.
> On what basis shouldn't it, please? It's the first time
I've seen a BMP
> file employed in this way. If this is likely to become a more common
> procedure then surely NetSurf developers would wish to know, yes?
I think that one's been answered for you. If you want to be sure
that
the majority of browsers can display your images stick to GIF, JPEG
and PNG. I now realise that NetSurf does render BMPs so I don't know
why it doesn't like yours.
I've now read the explanation!
--
Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
mailto:ricp@minijem.plus.com
I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
4355
days inactive
4363
days old
netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
41 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
Brian Bailey -
Chris Young -
cj -
David J. Ruck -
Dr Peter Young -
John Harrison -
John Williams -
John-Mark Bell -
lists -
Michael Bell -
Michael Drake -
Richard Porter -
Rob Kendrick -
Ste (PlusNet) -
Tim Hill -
Vince M Hudd -
Vincent Sanders