Safari users, help please

T

Throw

G'day everyone!

I have a site (not validated, not strict anything) which works just
fine in my browser (Opera for Windows) but a user recently complained
that none of the links work in Safari (Mac). If you have Safari, could
you please take a look to see if the links work, and if not, can you
speculate as to why not?

The URL is http://www.vertaal.org/spel/ .

Thanks!
Throw aka voetleuce
 
C

claudel

G'day everyone!

I have a site (not validated, not strict anything) which works just
fine in my browser (Opera for Windows) but a user recently complained
that none of the links work in Safari (Mac). If you have Safari, could
you please take a look to see if the links work, and if not, can you
speculate as to why not?

The URL is http://www.vertaal.org/spel/ .

Thanks!
Throw aka voetleuce

I'm running the latest Safari and the links following the "URL:"
appear to be active. I didn't follow each one, but they behave
as I would expect active links to behave. Are there other links
that are not next to the "URL:"s?

The "mailto" link and the jumps at the page bottom appear to be
active as well.

Claude
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Throw quothed:
G'day everyone!

I have a site (not validated, not strict anything) which works just
fine in my browser (Opera for Windows) but a user recently complained
that none of the links work in Safari (Mac). If you have Safari, could
you please take a look to see if the links work, and if not, can you
speculate as to why not?

The URL is http://www.vertaal.org/spel/ .

Thanks!
Throw aka voetleuce

The markup didn't look too bad. A couple things I saw:

You might want to put a line like this:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-
1">

in your <head>

This line:

<link href="../style.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />

-Why the trailing slash?

Why not "upgrade" to html 4.01?
 
J

Jim Higson

Throw said:
G'day everyone!

I have a site (not validated, not strict anything) which works just
fine in my browser (Opera for Windows) but a user recently complained
that none of the links work in Safari (Mac). If you have Safari, could
you please take a look to see if the links work, and if not, can you
speculate as to why not?

If you want to test for yourself, you could always get the latest Knoppix
live CD. That has Konqueror which, while not 100% equivalent, will in
almost all cases render as Safari would (they use pretty much the same
engine). As it goes, KHTML has more maintainable code, but WebCore has more
new stuff added, they should both agree on easy stuff like links.
 
J

Jim Moe

Throw said:
G'day everyone!

I have a site (not validated, not strict anything) which works just
fine in my browser (Opera for Windows) but a user recently complained
that none of the links work in Safari (Mac). If you have Safari, could
you please take a look to see if the links work, and if not, can you
speculate as to why not?
Possibly they were having a problem with "URL: http://www.spel.co.za/"
(and others) which shows an URL string, but is not a link. You link on the
image but that is not at all obvious unless they happen to wave the mouse
over it.
 
D

Dan

Neredbojias said:
You might want to put a line like this:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-
1">

in your <head>

Better to get the server to send a real HTTP header to that effect, for
which the meta tag is merely an inferior substitute.
 
D

dorayme

From: "Dan said:
Better to get the server to send a real HTTP header to that effect, for
which the meta tag is merely an inferior substitute.

And this is done by ...?

dorayme
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Dan quothed:
Better to get the server to send a real HTTP header to that effect, for
which the meta tag is merely an inferior substitute.

Yes, but my thought was that the OP was perhaps having his trouble
simply because the line was missing under his current configuration.
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, Alan J. Flavell quothed:
Reading existing postings, FAQs and (gasp) documentation is said to be
quite efficacious.

....And for those of us who are not efficaciously efficient??
 
D

dorayme

From: "Alan J. Flavell said:
Reading existing postings, FAQs and (gasp) documentation is said to be
quite efficacious.

Depends.

Failing that, http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTTP-charset
might offer some useful hints.


OK... I took a look. I usually just put

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">

in the head and no one seems to have had any trouble with my
websites on this account. But I understand it is not the best.
So be a sport and just say what else I should do exactly. Put
what where or do what. If it is "contact the various servers and
ask them this and that and ..." I will likely have to put it off
because of work pressures... If it is a matter of putting some
definite text (somewhere in my html docs) I will do that.

If anything happens to my sites, if the sites turn up in Chinese
or if a Russian mafia gang gets upset because of text
difficulties and sets out to put a contract on my family of my
cat, I will hold you personally responsible if it is a simple
matter of me putting a bit of text in the right place. You, Alan
Flavell, come on: spill the beans!

I am not immedietely helped by remarks in the reference you give
such as:

"It is very important to always label Web documents explicitly.
HTTP 1.1 says that the default charset is ISO-8859-1. But there
are too many unlabeled documents in other encodings, so browsers
use the reader's preferred encoding when there is no explicit
charset parameter.

The line in the HTTP header typically looks like this:

Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"

Because what is it I am supposed to do in a concrete manner. I
know I should know these things by now but I don't and that is
where you come in... What is the point in me having an indirect
relationship with you if you don't come good on this stuff? No
point at all, that's the point. Spill the beans and tell me all
Alan... :)

dorayme
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

OK... I took a look. I usually just put

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">

Or, presumably, whatever other character encoding scheme (e.g utf-8) one
is using in one's document...
in the head and no one seems to have had any trouble with my
websites on this account.

well, that will indeed achieve the intended result if the server is
not already sending a contradictory "charset" value on a real HTTP header,
(something which seems to be happening more often nowadays).

The real HTTP header is authoritative: you can't override it with
a "meta", you have to find out how to tame the server.
But I understand it is not the best.

This is also my opinion, although opinions do vary. But one item of the
underlying theory is fixed, whatever one's opinion: if the server is
sending out a contradictory HTTP header, then it has to be tamed, no way
around it.

If it isn't doing that, then one does still have the option, agreed.
So be a sport and just say what else I should do exactly.

Personally, I'd use AddCharset in a .htaccess file (that's for
Apache-based servers, of course), just like it said in the cited W3C
page (I hope you read that far ;-)

But that depends not only on what server it is, but also what facilities
it has opened to its document owners. That's why there isn't a single
correct answer, and that's why I offered a pointer to a whole menagerie of
possibilities, one or more of which may be open to the questioner.

What it comes down to is that one has to ask one's server nicely to send
the appropriate HTTP header, but what "nicely" means depends very much on
circumstances. Sorry, don't blame me, that's just the way that it is: I
wasn't deliberately trying to be obscure, even if it looked that way.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,755
Messages
2,569,536
Members
45,009
Latest member
GidgetGamb

Latest Threads

Top