8:02 a.m.
This is with the 30 Jan 2007 15:45 build and with RISC OS 5.12. I
think it isn't a bug, but some awful HTML, which is why I'm posting
here but not on the bug tracker.
For the last couple of days the formatting of www.bbc.co.uk has gone
substantially wrong. Why I think it's not NetSurf's fault is that
Oregano 2 makes a lot more of a hash of it. RISC OS Firefox seems to
get it right, and also Firefox, Opera and Internet Exploiter on Win
XP. However, the page has a "display options" link, and this seems to
work on none of these six browsers, though in NetSurf you have to make
a guess as to where this link is, as it doesn't show up. Does this
give a pointer to some bad HTML, I wonder?
FWIW I've tried validating it on two validator sites, and they both
come up with multiple errors.
I doubt whether the developers would think it worthwhile to try to
make NetSurf work with what seems to be such a defective site, but I
felt I might get a bit more understanding and explanation here than
from the BBC. However, if someone with a lot more technical knowledge
thinks that having a go at the BBC might be worth it ...
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
Anne \ / __ __ \ England.
and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk.
11:52 a.m.
On 31 Jan 2007 Dr Peter Young <pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk> wrote:
This is with the 30 Jan 2007 15:45 build and with RISC OS 5.12. I
think it isn't a bug, but some awful HTML, which is why I'm posting
here but not on the bug tracker.
For the last couple of days the formatting of www.bbc.co.uk has gone
substantially wrong. Why I think it's not NetSurf's fault is that
Oregano 2 makes a lot more of a hash of it. RISC OS Firefox seems to
get it right, and also Firefox, Opera and Internet Exploiter on Win
XP.
Well NetSurf doesn't make too bad a go of the front page apart from the
Browse column being displaced.
However, the page has a "display options" link, and this
seems to
work on none of these six browsers, though in NetSurf you have to make
a guess as to where this link is, as it doesn't show up. Does this
give a pointer to some bad HTML, I wonder?
If you resize the page in NetSurf you can see the Display Options and
Accessibility Help links being draw then obscured by a white rectangle.
You should raise both of this issues as separate bug reports.
Incidentally you are right about the display in O2 being a mess, and it
features images that aren't on the NetSurf or Firefox versions. Its better
than O3 though which just displays the top grey bar and the About the BBC
links at the bottom.
Cheers
---Dave
--
____________________________________________________________________________
David J. Ruck Phone: +44- (0)7974 108301 Email: druck(a)druck.org.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
5:53 a.m.
On 31 Jan 2007 "David J. Ruck" <druck(a)druck.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
You should raise both of this issues as separate bug reports.
Done that, and thanks for the advice. However, I'm still unsure
whether it's worth the developers' time trying to make up for what
seems to be execrable HTML.
Also:
On 31 Jan 2007 Richard Porter <ricp(a)minijem.plus.com> wrote:
[snip]
It's still wrong here. I suggest we all fill in the Beeb's
response
form to report a technical problem with their home page.
I won't do that, as I don't have the requisite technical knowledge, so
I hope others will do so. However, I think one can guess what the
response might be from looking at http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/
Guess which OS doesn't get even a mention? However, maybe they'll
emulate what HSBC did. (All pigs fuelled and ready to fly.)
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
Anne \ / __ __ \ England.
and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk.
7:58 a.m.
On 1 Feb 2007 Dr Peter Young wrote:
On 31 Jan 2007 Richard Porter <ricp(a)minijem.plus.com> wrote:
[snip]
> It's still wrong here. I suggest we all fill in the Beeb's response
> form to report a technical problem with their home page.
I won't do that, as I don't have the requisite technical
knowledge, so
I hope others will do so.
You do have the capability to describe what you can see on your
screen! You are not expected to know what the technical problem is.
However, I think one can guess what the response might be from
looking
at http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/
Guess which OS doesn't get even a mention? However, maybe they'll
emulate what HSBC did. (All pigs fuelled and ready to fly.)
--
_
|_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
|\_||_ mailto:ricp@minijem.plus.com
5:41 p.m.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Dr Peter Young wrote:
On 31 Jan 2007 "David J. Ruck" <druck(a)druck.org.uk>
wrote:
[snip]
> You should raise both of this issues as separate bug reports.
Done that, and thanks for the advice. However, I'm still unsure
whether it's worth the developers' time trying to make up for what
seems to be execrable HTML.
Well, you know, there are ways to reduce the amount of time that the
developers need to spend on investigating these issues. In this case (and
there are similar ones on the tracker) our lives would be made
significantly easier if constrained testcases were created; either by the
original reporter or some other interested party.
John.
1:16 a.m.
On 1 Feb 2007 John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Dr Peter Young wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2007 "David J. Ruck" <druck(a)druck.org.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> You should raise both of this issues as separate bug reports.
>
> Done that, and thanks for the advice. However, I'm still unsure
> whether it's worth the developers' time trying to make up for what
> seems to be execrable HTML.
Well, you know, there are ways to reduce the amount of time that the
developers need to spend on investigating these issues. In this case (and
there are similar ones on the tracker) our lives would be made
significantly easier if constrained testcases were created; either by the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
original reporter or some other interested party.
I might do that if I knew what it meant!
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
Anne \ / __ __ \ England.
and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk.
5:44 a.m.
In message <2b04bbae4e.pnyoung(a)pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>
Dr Peter Young <pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk> wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
> Well, you know, there are ways to reduce the amount of time that
the
> developers need to spend on investigating these issues. In this case (and
> there are similar ones on the tracker) our lives would be made
> significantly easier if constrained testcases were created; either by the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> original reporter or some other interested party.
I might do that if I knew what it meant!
It means make simple test pages which demonstrate the same problem as
the original page. It is quite simple to make them; requirements are
time and basic understanding of how HTML and CSS work.
The simplest way is usually to:
1. Full save the page
2. Check that the problem still exists on the full saved page
3. Delete a chunk of HTML or CSS from the full saved page
4. Check that the problem still occurs
5. Repeat 3 and 4 until you can't delete anything else without
removing whatever is causing the problem.
Also, you might what to check the final page with another browser like
Firefox or Opera, to check that the problem NetSurf has isn't a
problem for that browser.
Examples of constrained test cases can be found in "crashes" and
"haveproblems" here:
http://source.netsurf-browser.org/trunk/netsurftest/
Don't worry if you are unable to make a constrained test case. All bug
reports are worth having.
The more work the user can do to identify the problem fully, the more
bugs developers will have time to fix.
If the problem isn't layout related or requires interaction with the
web server (such as form submission), then a full list of the exact
sequence of the steps you took that ran into trouble is required.
Best regards,
--
Michael Drake (tlsa)
http://www.smoothartist.com/
8:13 a.m.
On 3 Feb 2007 Michael Drake <mike(a)smoothartist.com> wrote:
In message <2b04bbae4e.pnyoung(a)pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>
Dr Peter Young <pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2007 John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
>> Well, you know, there are ways to reduce the amount of time that the
>> developers need to spend on investigating these issues. In this case (and
>> there are similar ones on the tracker) our lives would be made
>> significantly easier if constrained testcases were created; either by the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> original reporter or some other interested party.
> I might do that if I knew what it meant!
[snip very comprehensive explanation]
The more work the user can do to identify the problem fully, the
more
bugs developers will have time to fix.
So I'm afraid it's way beyond the scope of my knowledge. Sorry!
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
Anne \ / __ __ \ England.
and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk.
2:46 p.m.
In message <4477d8ad4e.pnyoung(a)pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>
Dr Peter Young <pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk> wrote:
This is with the 30 Jan 2007 15:45 build and with RISC OS 5.12. I
think it isn't a bug, but some awful HTML, which is why I'm posting
here but not on the bug tracker.
For the last couple of days the formatting of www.bbc.co.uk has gone
substantially wrong.
I don't know if the BBC have fixed it now, but it looks OK to me
this evening, equally with the builds of the 28th and the 30th.
Dave
3:26 p.m.
On 31 Jan 2007 Dave Higton wrote:
Dr Peter Young <pnyoung(a)ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> For the last couple of days the formatting of www.bbc.co.uk has gone
> substantially wrong.
I don't know if the BBC have fixed it now, but it looks OK to me
this evening, equally with the builds of the 28th and the 30th.
It's still wrong here. I suggest we all fill in the Beeb's response
form to report a technical problem with their home page.
--
_
|_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
|\_||_ mailto:ricp@minijem.plus.com
5845
days inactive
5848
days old
netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Dave Higton -
David J. Ruck -
Dr Peter Young -
John-Mark Bell -
Michael Drake -
Richard Porter