Finally got this project onlne using run basic

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, Mar 24, 2009.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html

    Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
    I developed the expanding tree part.

    There is no javascript anywhere in the program.

    You may experience a tad slowing loading if you're on dialup.
    But be patient, it will get to you. Nothing more than loading a page.

    I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    have any problems with it.
    richard, Mar 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard wrote:

    > http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html


    "When computing first got underway in the way home there were two ways
    of getting information onto the screen. DOS or BASIC."

    For me, the first was UNIX. You need to revise your content.

    > Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
    > I developed the expanding tree part.
    > I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    > have any problems with it.


    <lol!>

    Opera/9.64 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.1.1, but the same with
    Firefox.

    "application has unexpectedly terminated
    Please contact your webmaster.

    This application has unexpectedly terminated
    Please contact your webmaster.

    This application has unexpectedly terminated
    Please contact your webmaster."

    Heh, you should stick to truck driving.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:23:53 -0400, richard <>
    wrote:

    >http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html
    >
    >Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
    >I developed the expanding tree part.
    >
    >There is no javascript anywhere in the program.
    >
    >You may experience a tad slowing loading if you're on dialup.
    >But be patient, it will get to you. Nothing more than loading a page.
    >
    >I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    >have any problems with it.



    Something odd I don't understand about this.
    I have two standard links using the <a> tag.
    Both are properly refernced.
    However, when I hover over them, I see my site is also included in the
    link. How the hell does this happen?
    richard, Mar 24, 2009
    #3
  4. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:08:08 -0400, richard <>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:23:53 -0400, richard <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html
    >>
    >>Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
    >>I developed the expanding tree part.
    >>
    >>There is no javascript anywhere in the program.
    >>
    >>You may experience a tad slowing loading if you're on dialup.
    >>But be patient, it will get to you. Nothing more than loading a page.
    >>
    >>I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    >>have any problems with it.

    >
    >
    >Something odd I don't understand about this.
    >I have two standard links using the <a> tag.
    >Both are properly refernced.
    >However, when I hover over them, I see my site is also included in the
    >link. How the hell does this happen?


    Cured. Forgot to include the http.
    richard, Mar 24, 2009
    #4
  5. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:54:12 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:

    >richard wrote:
    >
    >> http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html

    >
    >"When computing first got underway in the way home there were two ways
    >of getting information onto the screen. DOS or BASIC."
    >
    >For me, the first was UNIX. You need to revise your content.
    >
    >> Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
    >> I developed the expanding tree part.
    >> I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    >> have any problems with it.

    >
    ><lol!>
    >
    >Opera/9.64 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.1.1, but the same with
    >Firefox.
    >
    >"application has unexpectedly terminated
    >Please contact your webmaster.
    >
    >This application has unexpectedly terminated
    >Please contact your webmaster.
    >
    >This application has unexpectedly terminated
    >Please contact your webmaster."
    >
    >Heh, you should stick to truck driving.



    Did any part of it load?
    You should at least see a list of states in the left column.
    richard, Mar 24, 2009
    #5
  6. richard wrote:

    > Cured.


    Not quite.

    <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net%3A8008%2Fseaside%2Fgo%2Frunbasicpersonal%3F_s%3DoOFPkwTjNTeBlzPb%26_k%3DqQLAlXft>

    Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
    Result: 209 Errors, 9 warning(s)
    (for your iframe page)

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 24, 2009
    #6
  7. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:54:12 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:

    >richard wrote:
    >
    >> http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html

    >
    >"When computing first got underway in the way home there were two ways
    >of getting information onto the screen. DOS or BASIC."
    >
    >For me, the first was UNIX. You need to revise your content.
    >
    >> Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
    >> I developed the expanding tree part.
    >> I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    >> have any problems with it.

    >
    ><lol!>
    >
    >Opera/9.64 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.1.1, but the same with
    >Firefox.
    >
    >"application has unexpectedly terminated
    >Please contact your webmaster.
    >
    >This application has unexpectedly terminated
    >Please contact your webmaster.
    >
    >This application has unexpectedly terminated
    >Please contact your webmaster."
    >
    >Heh, you should stick to truck driving.



    Personally I think you're full of shit.
    I just installed opera 9.64 and had no problems loading the page.
    Hell, Opera loaded faster than FF.
    richard, Mar 24, 2009
    #7
  8. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:31:02 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:

    >richard wrote:
    >
    >> Cured.

    >
    >Not quite.
    >
    ><http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net%3A8008%2Fseaside%2Fgo%2Frunbasicpersonal%3F_s%3DoOFPkwTjNTeBlzPb%26_k%3DqQLAlXft>
    >
    >Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
    >Result: 209 Errors, 9 warning(s)
    >(for your iframe page)


    But you tried to validate the actual code page.

    I'm sure you'd get the same results for any java applet.
    The validator does not know, or care to know how an application is
    coded.


    <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.1littleworld.net%2Ftruck1.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0>
    richard, Mar 24, 2009
    #8
  9. richard wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >><lol!>
    >>
    >>Opera/9.64 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.1.1, but the same with
    >>Firefox.
    >>
    >>Heh, you should stick to truck driving.

    >
    > Personally I think you're full of shit.


    You'd be wrong. Why did 'polymer' post the exact same errors?

    > I just installed opera 9.64 and had no problems loading the page.
    > Hell, Opera loaded faster than FF.


    Yes, now it works (even in Opera), for some value of "works".

    Hell, in another post, you did say you corrected some errors. Pay
    attention.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 24, 2009
    #9
  10. richard wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:54:12 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html

    >> "When computing first got underway in the way home there were two ways
    >> of getting information onto the screen. DOS or BASIC."
    >>
    >> For me, the first was UNIX. You need to revise your content.
    >>
    >>> Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
    >>> I developed the expanding tree part.
    >>> I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    >>> have any problems with it.

    >> <lol!>
    >>
    >> Opera/9.64 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.1.1, but the same with
    >> Firefox.
    >>
    >> "application has unexpectedly terminated
    >> Please contact your webmaster.
    >>
    >> This application has unexpectedly terminated
    >> Please contact your webmaster.
    >>
    >> This application has unexpectedly terminated
    >> Please contact your webmaster."
    >>
    >> Heh, you should stick to truck driving.

    >
    >
    > Personally I think you're full of shit.
    > I just installed opera 9.64 and had no problems loading the page.
    > Hell, Opera loaded faster than FF.


    If your reaction to learning that someone's outcome isn't the same as
    yours is going to be to tell him he's full of shit, then have a lot of
    nerve asking people in the first place to see whether they get the same
    outcome as you.
    Harlan Messinger, Mar 24, 2009
    #10
  11. richard wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:31:02 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Cured.

    >> Not quite.
    >>
    >> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net%3A8008%2Fseaside%2Fgo%2Frunbasicpersonal%3F_s%3DoOFPkwTjNTeBlzPb%26_k%3DqQLAlXft>
    >>
    >> Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
    >> Result: 209 Errors, 9 warning(s)
    >> (for your iframe page)

    >
    > But you tried to validate the actual code page.
    >
    > I'm sure you'd get the same results for any java applet.
    > The validator does not know, or care to know how an application is
    > coded.
    >
    >
    > <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.1littleworld.net%2Ftruck1.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0>
    >

    Have you looked? A Java applet has nothing to do with errors like having
    a "#" inside the ID attribute of an HTML tag or having multiple elements
    with same ID (which defeats the entire purpose of giving elements an ID
    attribute at all).
    Harlan Messinger, Mar 24, 2009
    #11
  12. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:08:45 -0400, Harlan Messinger
    <> wrote:

    >richard wrote:
    >> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:31:02 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> richard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Cured.
    >>> Not quite.
    >>>
    >>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net%3A8008%2Fseaside%2Fgo%2Frunbasicpersonal%3F_s%3DoOFPkwTjNTeBlzPb%26_k%3DqQLAlXft>
    >>>
    >>> Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
    >>> Result: 209 Errors, 9 warning(s)
    >>> (for your iframe page)

    >>
    >> But you tried to validate the actual code page.
    >>
    >> I'm sure you'd get the same results for any java applet.
    >> The validator does not know, or care to know how an application is
    >> coded.
    >>
    >>
    >> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.1littleworld.net%2Ftruck1.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0>
    >>

    >Have you looked? A Java applet has nothing to do with errors like having
    >a "#" inside the ID attribute of an HTML tag or having multiple elements
    >with same ID (which defeats the entire purpose of giving elements an ID
    >attribute at all).



    And have either of you smart ass know it alls bothered to look at the
    fact that all of those errors came from the same line?
    That I have no control over. That is generated by the programmer and
    the way he programmed the output to read.

    I have made him aware that id="#whatever" is not valid.

    It is also possible that in the process of compiling the BASIC
    language into useable html, has some quirks to it. As html does not
    understand that "#one" is not an "ID" tag per se, but rather an
    identifier for use within the language.

    I have also seen the validator have holy fits over certain items that
    are perfectly acceptable in the javascript convention. Or it has fits
    because a simple ? was used within a section surrounded by quotes.

    I am also quite sure that the validator would have holy fits if
    someone dare imbed visual basic into the page.
    richard, Mar 24, 2009
    #12
  13. richard wrote:

    >Harlan Messinger wrote:
    >>richard wrote:
    >>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
    >>>> richard wrote:
    >>>>> Cured.
    >>>> Not quite.
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net%3A8008%2Fseaside%2Fgo%2Frunbasicpersonal%3F_s%3DoOFPkwTjNTeBlzPb%26_k%3DqQLAlXft>
    >>>>
    >>>> Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
    >>>> Result: 209 Errors, 9 warning(s)
    >>>> (for your iframe page)
    >>>
    >>> But you tried to validate the actual code page.


    Huh? Code page? Oh wait ...

    >>> I'm sure you'd get the same results for any java applet.
    >>> The validator does not know, or care to know how an application is
    >>> coded.
    >>>
    >>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.1littleworld.net%2Ftruck1.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0>


    That one is just your tiny 'frameset' page. I'm surprised you didn't
    recognize the difference.

    >> Have you looked? A Java applet has nothing to do with errors like
    >> having a "#" inside the ID attribute of an HTML tag or having
    >> multiple elements with same ID (which defeats the entire purpose of
    >> giving elements an ID attribute at all).

    >
    > And have either of you smart ass know it alls bothered to look at the
    > fact that all of those errors came from the same line? That I have no
    > control over. That is generated by the programmer and the way he
    > programmed the output to read.


    Well, duh! The entire *page* is on one line!

    > I have made him aware that id="#whatever" is not valid.


    Yeah, right. You're gonna get the W3C to change their validator because
    of some crap your runbasic thing spits out?

    > It is also possible that in the process of compiling the BASIC
    > language into useable html, has some quirks to it.


    Now that's an understatement. Some?

    > As html does not
    > understand that "#one" is not an "ID" tag per se, but rather an
    > identifier for use within the language.
    >
    > I have also seen the validator have holy fits over certain items that
    > are perfectly acceptable in the javascript convention. Or it has fits
    > because a simple ? was used within a section surrounded by quotes.


    It would not have fits if you wrote valid HTML. JavaScript is not valid
    HTML. If it bitched about your question mark, you used it somewhere,
    probably in a URL that was wrong.

    > I am also quite sure that the validator would have holy fits if
    > someone dare imbed visual basic into the page.


    That'd be like taking your sewing machine to the car shop for repairs.

    You keep posting about this Runbasic crap, then can't take the heat when
    someone(s) tells you just how bad it really is.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 24, 2009
    #13
  14. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    richard <> wrote:

    > http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html
    >
    > Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
    > I developed the expanding tree part.
    >
    > There is no javascript anywhere in the program.
    >
    > You may experience a tad slowing loading if you're on dialup.
    > But be patient, it will get to you. Nothing more than loading a page.
    >
    > I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    > have any problems with it.


    Displays fine on my browsers, in Icab and MacIE5 as well as all the
    usual suspects like Safari, FF ...

    What rather surprised me was how well it ran on my CD player when burned
    in as text from Source View, it flowers into the beautiful Irving Berlin
    song. Here is a marvellous version by Perry Como and the Pointer Sisters
    (the latter making it nearly everything it is):

    <http://tinyurl.com/cptf5x>

    or

    <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/music/perryComoWithTheFontaineSisters.ht
    ml>

    (btw, your generator "AceHTML Freeware" is a master of semantic mark up.)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 24, 2009
    #14
  15. Travis Newbury, Mar 24, 2009
    #15
  16. richard

    asdf Guest

    "richard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html
    >
    > Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".


    The HTML in the iframe produces no less that 100 validation errors:
    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...t:8008/seaside/go/runbasicpersonal?app=truck1


    > I developed the expanding tree part.
    >
    > There is no javascript anywhere in the program.
    >


    ....which is not terribly surprising since you're doing lots of server
    round-trips/reloads to produce the 'expanded' bits, nothing too amazing
    there.

    > You may experience a tad slowing loading if you're on dialup.
    > But be patient, it will get to you. Nothing more than loading a page.
    >


    ....man, it's slow on broadband too.

    > I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    > have any problems with it.


    Man, you seem to have been working on this for *weeks*. I think most of us
    could have duplicated this using PHP or VBScript/ASP(X) on a rainy Saturday
    afternoon while watching the football.
    asdf, Mar 24, 2009
    #16
  17. asdf wrote:

    > Man, you seem to have been working on this for *weeks*. I think most
    > of us could have duplicated this using PHP or VBScript/ASP(X) on a
    > rainy Saturday afternoon while watching the football.


    <lol> That's true...

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 25, 2009
    #17
  18. On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:23:53 -0400, richard <>
    wrote:

    >http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html
    >
    >Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
    >I developed the expanding tree part.
    >
    >There is no javascript anywhere in the program.
    >
    >You may experience a tad slowing loading if you're on dialup.
    >But be patient, it will get to you. Nothing more than loading a page.
    >
    >I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
    >have any problems with it.



    Not a beautiful result, but it works with my SeaMonkey browser:
    labelled:
    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19)
    Gecko/20081204 NOT Firefox/2.0.0.12 SeaMonkey/1.1.14
    Raymond Schmit, Mar 25, 2009
    #18
  19. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <49c9706e$0$5627$>,
    "asdf" <> wrote:

    > ...man, it's slow on broadband too.


    ....not on my broadband, which is not anything like the fastest in the
    world.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 25, 2009
    #19
  20. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <gqbsrh$ecm$>,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > asdf wrote:
    >
    > > Man, you seem to have been working on this for *weeks*. I think most
    > > of us could have duplicated this using PHP or VBScript/ASP(X) on a
    > > rainy Saturday afternoon while watching the football.

    >
    > <lol> That's true...


    First Richard might have something called a life, and second, he might
    be developing something that starts slow and ends up like Phar Lap.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 25, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ^CrazyCoder^
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    7,252
    Terrence Benade
    Sep 15, 2003
  2. RedEagle
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    6,957
    thelukemccarthy
    Jul 17, 2010
  3. Stimp
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,050
    Karl Seguin [MVP]
    Jun 23, 2006
  4. Rony Steelandt

    We finally have a complete Python project

    Rony Steelandt, May 3, 2006, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    460
    Rony Steelandt
    May 3, 2006
  5. David Lozzi

    Try...Catch...Finally not firing finally?

    David Lozzi, Apr 23, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    792
    Alvin Bruney [MVP]
    May 11, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page