Re: Report attached as requested
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Kendrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please do not email us log files from crashed sessions of NetSurf with zero context. We did not request the log, as suggested in your subject line, nor any of the previous dozen. It is not helpful in the I suspect that is his (reasonable) interpretation of the error box. least, and wastes our and your time. Please either use the bug tracker, or report issues on this mailing list. You may be requested to send us the log file /after/ you have done this. Perhaps you could replace the error message with something as clear as this posting? -- Jess http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
Re: Report attached as requested
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Jess Hampshire wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Kendrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please do not email us log files from crashed sessions of NetSurf with zero context. We did not request the log, as suggested in your subject line, nor any of the previous dozen. It is not helpful in the I suspect that is his (reasonable) interpretation of the error box. least, and wastes our and your time. Please either use the bug tracker, or report issues on this mailing list. You may be requested to send us the log file /after/ you have done this. Perhaps you could replace the error message with something as clear as this posting? Clearly Rob's posting wasn't clear enough, seeing as you've missed the point of it :) The issue is not that bugs are being reported -- we're very grateful for that. It is, instead, that a Log file on its own does not constitute a bug report. There are many things the Log file can tell us, but a description of the exact things the user was doing when the fault occurred can often be equally, if not more, useful. The bug tracker, despite its faults, does at least result in some context being given. So far, the bugs@ mail alias has not (even when we've replied to mails sent to that address asking for context). Therefore, we've shut it down until such time as a better solution is forthcoming. John.
Re: Altering default window size
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tricia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28 Jul, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28 Jul 2008, Tricia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm fairly sure I did know how to alter the default size of the window in NetSurf but have forgotten (senior moments in spades these days) and although I've looked in the archives cannot find the information. Open the window as you wish it to be, then menu over the window Utilities Window Set as default position. Ah, that's the one :-) Silly me, I thought it was an option in Display - no wonder I couldn't get it to work... Many thanks, and from me. Regards Richard
Object scroll bars
Are there any plans (or timescale) to add support for scroll bars on embedded objects? I'm currently developing a website for a client, and I'm using the object tag instead of frames. Whilst it 'almost' works on NetSurf, there is no scrollbar so you can't read the bottom. Example at http://test.digitalphenomena.co.uk/abar/menu2.html Paul Vigay Editor, www.RISCOS.org -- 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/ Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Re: Object scroll bars
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:26:21 +0100 Paul Vigay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm currently developing a website for a client, and I'm using the object tag instead of frames. Whilst it 'almost' works on NetSurf, there is no scrollbar so you can't read the bottom. Why not use a frame instead? For embedding HTML content, they're conceptually identical in so far as their annoyances and flaws. Example at http://test.digitalphenomena.co.uk/abar/menu2.html I lost interest when attempting to wget this results in a 403. B.
Re: Object scroll bars
In a dim and distant universe [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Kendrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] enlightened us thusly: Why not use a frame instead? For embedding HTML content, they're conceptually identical in so far as their annoyances and flaws. I didn't really want to use frames due to having to recode the rest of the page, especially as I've made extensive use of SSIs which would mean I'd have to do that page differently to all the others. I lost interest when attempting to wget this results in a 403. That's because it's not a live site yet and is currently running from my test server, which blocks attempts to grab development code off it. :-) Paul Vigay Editor, www.RISCOS.org -- 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/ 51 things to do in a lift 44. Pull your gum out of your mouth in long strings.
Re: Object scroll bars
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:11:02 +0100 Paul Vigay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not use a frame instead? For embedding HTML content, they're conceptually identical in so far as their annoyances and flaws. I didn't really want to use frames due to having to recode the rest of the page, especially as I've made extensive use of SSIs which would mean I'd have to do that page differently to all the others. How is this different from using object ? I lost interest when attempting to wget this results in a 403. That's because it's not a live site yet and is currently running from my test server, which blocks attempts to grab development code off it. :-) You won't get any precise input from me, then :) Although I could just tell wget via command line parameters to use a different user agent (as anybody else would who wanted to grab your development code), it's not worth the 5 seconds of my time it would take! :-) B.
Re: Object scroll bars
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Vigay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a dim and distant universe [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Kendrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] enlightened us thusly: Why not use a frame instead? For embedding HTML content, they're conceptually identical in so far as their annoyances and flaws. I didn't really want to use frames due to having to recode the rest of the page, especially as I've made extensive use of SSIs which would mean I'd have to do that page differently to all the others. Not frames, use an IFRAME instead of OBJECT. Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Object scroll bars
In a dim and distant universe [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Kendrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] enlightened us thusly: How is this different from using object ? A single object tag as opposed to an entire frameset which has to be in the head section of the website. You won't get any precise input from me, then :) Although I could just tell wget via command line parameters to use a different user agent (as anybody else would who wanted to grab your development code), it's not worth the 5 seconds of my time it would take! :-) Well, it's not /that/ important. If it was, I'd just bung an .htaccess on it. It's only to stop casual grabbers and automated bots/spiders etc. Paul Vigay Editor, www.RISCOS.org -- 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/ Butterflies taste with their feet.
Re: Object scroll bars
In a dim and distant universe [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] enlightened us thusly: Not frames, use an IFRAME instead of OBJECT. Righto. I've changed it to an iframe, which does indeed correctly give a scroll bar in NetSurf, but the background is fixed at white, instead of being transparent - although that's obviously not so important. Paul Vigay Editor, www.RISCOS.org -- 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/ Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.
