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 r
On 20 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey 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 problem is that I
In article <5225151bf7bbai...@argonet.co.uk>,
Brian Bailey 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 still the province
Brian Bailey 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.
--
Soft Rock Softwa
lists wrote:
> In article ,
>Vince M Hudd 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 !Pluto
> I often receive attachmen
[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 Plut
In article ,
Vince M Hudd 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 !Pluto
I often receive attachments, usually jokes, where I see
On 20 Oct 2011 Brian Bailey 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 doesn't pars
[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 doesn't parse the HTML in any way to see if any other att
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
>>
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 woul
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 f
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 gener
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 generates the
> BadType report.
Should Ne
[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
In article <52240dc1act...@netsurf-browser.org>,
Michael Drake wrote:
> In article <522408c273bbai...@argonet.co.uk>,
>Brian Bailey wrote:
> > > OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The bitmap you
> > > sent me renders fine here.
> > It does here as well, in retrospect,
John-Mark Bell 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 to rewrite the image r
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 kno
In article <5223f8af84bbai...@argonet.co.uk>, 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.
> > OK. But an ht
In article <52240e39c2j...@jaharrison.me.uk>,
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
> ... 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 wheth
In article <522408c273bbai...@argonet.co.uk>,
Brian Bailey wrote:
> > OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The bitmap you
> > sent me renders fine here.
> It does here as well, in retrospect, in ChangeFSI, but originally I had
> no reason to do it that way.
John-Mark meant
> > > 3) Please email me both the HTML and BMP files in question
> >
> > Wilco. Bit busy at the moment, but will get back to you.
> OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The bitmap you
> sent me renders fine here.
It does here as well, in retrospect, in ChangeFSI, but originall
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 07:37 +0100, Brian Bailey wrote:
> > 3) Please email me both the HTML and BMP files in question
>
> Wilco. Bit busy at the moment, but will get back to you.
OK. So this has nothing to do with BMP images at all. The bitmap you
sent me renders fine here.
What is happening is
> > 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 should
> > 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
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. E
> Could it be a .bmp format not currently understood by NetSurf?
I just created a test html file that included a BMP image, and made an
interesting discovery.
If ImageFS2 has its action for BMP files set to Inactive, then NetSurf
renders the BMP image on the page.
But if ImageFS2 has its actio
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 th
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.
OK. But an html message or web page shouldn't contain BMP ima
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.
> > 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 a web browser and isn'
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
> > > My BMP file starts with the characters 'BM' as viewed in a text
> > > editor.
> [Snip]
> > If you can't read that file, then either the file is corrupt (easy
> > enough with e-mail) or you haven't got ImageFS (or whatever you use)
> > set up to convert BMP files.
> The OP indicated tha
In article <5223a930a9j...@jaharrison.me.uk>, John Harrison
wrote:
> > My BMP file starts with the characters 'BM' as viewed in a text
> > editor.
[Snip]
> If you can't read that file, then either the file is corrupt (easy
> enough with e-mail) or you haven't got ImageFS (or whatever you use)
> 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 o
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
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,
> > perhaps?
> A BMP file made with DPIngScan loads fine, so your
In article <5223956cc4bbai...@argonet.co.uk>,
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,
> perha
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
40 matches
Mail list logo
