Re: 2 sites that don't!
In message <09d3064855@abbeypress.net> Jim Nagel wrote: >Did that on the first web page. Got a security warning from StrongEd >about "process"; I said "allow always". >Then "File name '.in' not recognised". Sounds like !StrongED$ScrapDir has not been set. See the line Set StrongED$Script_Outfile .in in !StrongED.Defaults.Tools.!ScriptSED.Tools.Despatch . -- Gavin Wraith (ga...@wra1th.plus.com) Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/
Re: 2 sites that don't!
In article <09d3064855@abbeypress.net>, Jim Nagel wrote: > Have often wished for a similar thing to override bothersome CSS, > particularly CSS that specifies tiny grey text (which seems to be a > current fashion among some designers with younger eyes than mine). ... and what about the latest issue of Archive where, on page 3 you have white text on a light ngrey background??? -- Chris Johnson
Re: 2 sites that don't!
Gavin Wraith wrote on 26 Jan: > Using it on the text of the first webpage produces source for a leaner > webpage that reveals the hidden text. Here is the procedure: > 1. Page->View Source in NetSurf > 2. Save to some scrap directory. > 3. Shift-click to load into StrongED > 4. Shift-Drag noscript to apply icon. > 5. Save the result and change its type to HTML. Did that on the first web page. Got a security warning from StrongEd about "process"; I said "allow always". Then "File name '.in' not recognised". Maybe my version of Lua is too old? !BOOT.Resources.!Lua.version says 5.70 (2013-08-16). Potentially sounds like a very welcome utility. Have often wished for a similar thing to override bothersome CSS, particularly CSS that specifies tiny grey text (which seems to be a current fashion among some designers with younger eyes than mine). -- Jim Nagelwww.archivemag.co.uk
Re: 2 sites that don't!
In article <145dff4755.ga...@wra1th.plus.com>, Gavin Wraith wrote: > I have a useful little Lua script, called noscript, for use with > StrongED that strips out all the stuff between matching > and tags. Here it is: Useful: I have on occasion loked for the tags and deleted everything between - it can be done with a StrongED search and replace. But the script is easier. -- Richard Torrens. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!
Re: 2 sites that don't!
In article , Grahame Parish wrote: > Not related to the problem with the sites, but I confirm that the > feeders work very well. We have several cats with different dietary > requirements. Thanks - but any other discussion, off-list I think! -- Richard Torrens. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!
Re: 2 sites that don't!
In message <5547fb845eli...@torrens.org.uk> "Richard Torrens (lists)" wrote: >http://www.catbehaviourist.com/sure-feed-microchip-pet-feeder-review/ > >http://www.zooplus.co.uk/shop/cats/cat_bowls_feeders/feeders/programmable/479534?gclid=CImfsqu3x8oCFUORGwodHCUFYQ > >Both display very badly. First site all text is hidden. The source is very >over-complicated, so I can't see why. I have a useful little Lua script, called noscript, for use with StrongED that strips out all the stuff between matching and tags. Here it is: #! lua io.input (arg[1]) local text = io.read "*all" io.input ( ) local pat = "" io.write ((text:gsub (pat, ""))) Using it on the text of the first webpage produces source for a leaner webpage that reveals the hidden text. Here is the procedure: 1. Page->View Source in NetSurf 2. Save to some scrap directory. 3. Shift-click to load into StrongED 4. Shift-Drag noscript to apply icon. 5. Save the result and change its type to HTML. It would be nice if NetSurf could have an apply icon like StrongED, which could make a single drag action suffice. -- Gavin Wraith (ga...@wra1th.plus.com) Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/
Re: 2 sites that don't!
In message <5547fb845eli...@torrens.org.uk> "Richard Torrens (lists)" wrote: > http://www.catbehaviourist.com/sure-feed-microchip-pet-feeder-review/ > http://www.zooplus.co.uk/shop/cats/cat_bowls_feeders/feeders/programma > ble/479534?gclid=CImfsqu3x8oCFUORGwodHCUFYQ > Both display very badly. First site all text is hidden. The source is very > over-complicated, so I can't see why. Not related to the problem with the sites, but I confirm that the feeders work very well. We have several cats with different dietary requirements. -- Grahame Parish
2 sites that don't!
http://www.catbehaviourist.com/sure-feed-microchip-pet-feeder-review/ http://www.zooplus.co.uk/shop/cats/cat_bowls_feeders/feeders/programmable/479534?gclid=CImfsqu3x8oCFUORGwodHCUFYQ Both display very badly. First site all text is hidden. The source is very over-complicated, so I can't see why. -- Richard Torrens. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!
