Post #34,423
4/4/02 4:00:30 PM
|
OT: So much for "W3C//DTD HTML 4.0" + Mozilla .9.9
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>IHT: Cousins can do more than kiss, geneticists say</title>
<meta NAME="Headline" content="Cousins can do more than kiss, geneticists say">
<meta NAME="Page" content="1">
<meta NAME="Author" content="Denise Grady">
<meta NAME="ArticleDate" content="2002-04-04">
<meta NAME="Owner" content="The New York Times">
<meta NAME="VeritySections" content=" frontpage news health health">
<script type="text/javascript" src="/scripts/ihtWorldMap.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/scripts/ihtClippings.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/scripts/ihtEventsWindow.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/scripts/ihtMain.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/scripts/ihtEventsUser.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/scripts/ihtArticle.js"></script> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/ihtGlobal_v2.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/ihtPrint.css">
<script type="text/javascript" src="/scripts/ihtNetscape.js"></script>
</head>
<!-- Article Template -->
The sucker doesn't show Anything much and ignores <Go Back to Start of Article> tag... Had to read the 'announcement' in source. Ho hum - as if statistics were ever gonna keepitinthepants .!. Ashton {sheesh} if Moz99 can't do prevailing jscript - WTF can? Works at zIWE and a few other occasions I've allowed it ON. Must be that CSS thingie, which I hear is also about as consistent as a Repo talkin about the Middle East or about helpin the poor. OK I'll blame this on Billy. Too.
|
Post #34,428
4/4/02 4:24:02 PM
|
Must be written to InternetExploder 5+
From here, I love that site. That's how CSS should work. Though, Mozilla should be able to do it, to. I'd like to see if the problem is a bug in Mozilla or non-(W3C)standard code on the page.
===
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #34,440
4/4/02 5:18:30 PM
|
It may be at the OS level
I just picked it up (url = [link|http://www.iht.com/articles/53577.html|http://www.iht.com/...s/53577.html]) on moz 0.9.9 under win2k. Ashton is using a lightened w98 variant. Later I'll try it from a linux box.
I don't know enough about browser technology to know why one should work and the other won't.
Could be OS.. could be difference in firewalls, protectors, yadayada...
I'll report back later with the linux story if nobody beats me to it.
Hugh
|
Post #34,445
4/4/02 6:18:44 PM
|
Moz 0.99 on OS X works
Tom Sinclair
"Subverting Young Minds Since 03/13/2000"
|
Post #34,481
4/4/02 11:57:02 PM
|
Re: Must be written to InternetExploder 5+
It works for me with Mozilla .99 under Linux.
If I pull up the page info some of it displays wrong though, in a way that makes me suspect that one or more of the Gifs they have inbedded in the page is invalid.
Jay
|
Post #34,483
4/5/02 12:42:32 AM
|
Re: OT: So much for "W3C//DTD HTML 4.0" + Mozilla .9.9
Looks damn near perfect here.
Galeon 1.2, (based on Gecko from Mozilla 0.9.9). Debian Linux (Sid).
Peter
Shill For Hire
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
|
Post #34,491
4/5/02 4:05:22 AM
|
Maybe something odd in WW, then..
While I can't see how an OS feature/bug would apply (?) that only means: I can't.
Could be WW 3.0, and some cockamamie filter Not turned off by X-ing the sucker "off". That appears to be the case at eBay.. with this WW. And as usual I hesitate to ^%#@%& "up"-grade THAT too, as it seems every new ^%#@%& "up".. just Has to have a bunch of new toys = n! chances to screw up something Else.
But OK _ looks like everyone else's 9.9 groks to fullness, so I guess I'll have to read the critics to see which is Now the least buggy version of WWasher. (I shoulda kept the 2.x version, which apparently never screwed up anything).
I say:
^%#@%& Feature-itis SUCKS
I just wanna Use this crap, not massage it anew every week.....
piss moan.. people that cannot leave 'WORKING' alone ... until they make it Not-Work.
|
Post #34,525
4/5/02 12:39:59 PM
|
Works right under Linux 2.4 + Mozilla .9.9
Although the Mozilla crew did do something to the JavaScript handling in 0.9.9. I have a script that works on IE 4 & 5 and NS 4 without having to test the browser. It worked fine on Mozilla >0.6 until 0.9.9. Now strange things happen if I revisit the page using the back button..
|
Post #34,527
4/5/02 1:47:46 PM
|
Re: OT: So much for "W3C//DTD HTML 4.0" + Mozilla .9.9
OK Ashton, I got you into this. :)
Try Edit->Preferences.
Click on triangle left of Advanced.
Click on Scripts & Windows of expanded Advanced properties.
On the top of the right side of the Scripts & Windows panel, under "Enable Java Script for:", click the check box next to "Navigator"
Click OK button and then reload web page and try Box'x link again.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #34,540
4/5/02 3:59:54 PM
|
Curiouser n'curiouser
Thanks for tip, but -
On installation Even I.. always go down the entire list of Prefs, madly unchecking anything like 'auto-update' and 'may we send you reams of ads?' - and j-script is OFF usually. But on above page, with jscript ON, I reloaded the page ex-cache (at least I suppose that holding down {shift} + click is a universal "don't use cache" command (?))
Heh. Just killed WW and Moz, changing to "don't use proxy". Cleared both Moz caches and went there. NO WW filters = the sucker isn't even running as a task. The links indeed produce the 'hand' cursor when moused over - but do not function AND: two Win-type message boxes arose, "Connection to ad.doubleclick... refused". (This because it's on the shit-list in my hosts file, natch.)
Now I could reboot with hosts renamed and maybe ALSO kill ZAlarm and go there rilly naked but.. t'aint worth it. I'm just not meant to view this (well actually I did - in source :(
Cheers,
Ashton
|
