On 20 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey bbai...@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
In article mpro.lt9ogc00bji230270.vi...@softrock.co.uk,
Vince M Hudd vi...@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
[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
lists stuartli...@orpheusinternet.co.uk wrote:
In article mpro.lt9ogc00bji230270.vi...@softrock.co.uk,
Vince M Hudd vi...@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.
Brian Bailey bbai...@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.
In article 5225151bf7bbai...@argonet.co.uk,
Brian Bailey bbai...@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
On 20 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey bbai...@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
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:57:21AM +0100, Vince M Hudd wrote:
Either way, this is now off-topic.
Indeed it is. It was off topic about four mails in.
Please don't sprawl your RISC OS discussions on this list. I'm sure there're
places where you don't irritate many people while doing so. I've
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
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
... 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
In article 5223f8af84bbai...@argonet.co.uk, Brian Bailey
bbai...@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.
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
John-Mark Bell j...@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
In article 52240dc1act...@netsurf-browser.org,
Michael Drake t...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
In article 522408c273bbai...@argonet.co.uk,
Brian Bailey bbai...@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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
In article 5223956cc4bbai...@argonet.co.uk,
Brian Bailey bbai...@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
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,
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
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
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.
On 17 Oct 2011 John-Mark Bell wrote:
NetSurf has full support for BMP images.
You're right it does!
--
Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/
mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com
I don't want a user experience - I just want stuff that
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.
28 matches
Mail list logo
