Internal linking

[dorayme]

Like my new x-face?

You know how I don't like anything about you, so why ask?

 

[dorayme]

I cannot think of any setting I can improve on in BBEdit just
this mo. As for the FTP, it is Cyberduck and there are not that
many settings, must take a closer look.

Look in Cyberduck for something concerning Transfer Mode. If you
transfer HTML (or text) files in binary mode that /may/ be the problem.[/QUOTE]

I did look at this before. No, I don't think so. Transfer mode is
set to auto and in this software it is the go, either ASCII or
Binary would be wrong for half the things I upload.

But I noticed the encoding for this particular server was set to
default. I have chosen utf-8 as with other servers I have on my
books.

And I have changed the "Convert Line Endings" (wasn't this what
Boji was babbling about trying to blind me with science?) to Unix
Line Endings from the former Mac Line Endings (CR) because it
sounds more geeky and because I will try anything once.

Now I will wait and see what happens in the future.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:27:39 GMT
dorayme scribed:

You know how I don't like anything about you, so why ask?

You need a spanking.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:09:15 GMT
dorayme scribed:

I fiddled about and I _think_ this is better... I changed a
setting in my editor, probably to do with line endings from Mac
to Unix.

The first four rows will be slightly different in source to the
rest because of a bit of hand attention, the rest were set auto
to 72 characters. What a distraction.

http://tinyurl.com/24y5hp

That's great for my left eye but what about my right eye?

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:03:26 GMT
dorayme scribed:

And I have changed the "Convert Line Endings" (wasn't this what
Boji was babbling about trying to blind me with science?) to Unix
Line Endings from the former Mac Line Endings (CR) because

That should do it (unless "Unix Line Endings" are something morphoditic,
too.)

 

[rf]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:27:39
GMT
dorayme scribed:


You need a spanking.

Jpegs?

 

[Ed Mullen]

Jpegs?

Oh, better yet, a My Space page or a YouTube video! With appropriate
disclaimers and warnings, of course!

Well, maybe not. Nah. That would just lead to people harassing me
about some innocent post about HTML or CSS or something with: "Well,
ok! Post a naughty video to prove it!!!"

And the next thing you know Jukka would be annotating all of his posts
with links to risque videos of him acting out his didacticisms
au-natural. Nah, I don't think this thread needs to continue.

But, geez, if I could just find that damned video camera ...

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Friction can be a real drag.

 

[dorayme]

That's great for my left eye but what about my right eye?

Does this mean something?

 

[dorayme]

Jpegs?

You _are_ quite a keen photographer I notice.

 

[dorayme]

Nah, I don't think this thread needs to continue.

Before you go though, I trust that the format is better in view
source now. Tell Boji and rf that it would be a healthier
activity to photograph relevant source code as they see it rather
than be distracted by their S & M fantasies.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:06:09 GMT
dorayme scribed:

Does this mean something?

Of course it means something. Formatting text to an arbitrary width is
like creating a fixed-width web page. Line-endings come naturally at the
actual ends of lines; you don't need to propagate more of them randomly
and/or indiscriminately.

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:06:09 GMT
dorayme scribed:


Of course it means something. Formatting text to an arbitrary width is
like creating a fixed-width web page. Line-endings come naturally at the
actual ends of lines; you don't need to propagate more of them randomly
and/or indiscriminately.

Please speak more plainly. What is random and indiscriminate?

I fiddled about and for the first time in about 5 years I
actually used Tidy to reflow things. Usually I jam all up to the
left and set 72 chars and it does not seem too bad. Something
happened this time and you are on a war path. You know how
dangerous this is Boji.

You are someone that my shrink says I should use mercilessly to
get things off my chest. You would be surprised to know that my
friends have been remarking on how amiable I have been and these
periods always coincide with our big fights. In other words, you
are doing good by being beaten up by me. Photograph that rf. Why
don't you get a camera that does better than jpgs to _begin with_
(with a jpg it is all downhill from there... perhaps it the
downhill you like, being a skier)

 

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2007-08-22 12:15:59 +0200, dorayme <[email protected]>
said:

Safari does not happily negotiate

http://tinyurl.com/24y5hp

iCab is quite simply brilliant, FF is fine. I don't know about
IE6 and 7, Mac IE is fine too.

I was surprised by Safari, make the window not too big and see
how it fails to show some of the links.

[ ... ]

OK, now, this out of the way, you likely have a Mac. So how about
confirming or giving me your observations about Safari please n
respect of above.

I'd be glad to do so, but your URL gives a 404 error today (both on
Safari and on iCab) though it worked yesterday. Have you moved the test
page?

After it was pointed out to me in quite unparliamentary language
that the source code formatting was not the best, I took it down,
stormed off and got blind drunk. I am out on bail now and will
see if I can see what the problem is. (It has been confirmed by a
spider and me already that Safari likes ids in tds rather than
trs if you read the thread. But thanks Athel.

Now it loads fine. In iCab the links work perfectly (with highlighting)
even when the window is small. Safari (2.0.4, i.e. the version that
came with my computer, now almost two years old) does a much worse job,
as you say, and not all links work. If I click on #RA_TK6, for example,
it fails to take me there, and I need to scroll.

Talk to me about formatting instead,

The formatting looks just fine if I get iCab to display the source (or
Safari, Mozilla 1.7.3 or Firefox 1.5.0.3) for that matter), but if I
download your file and look at the source with TexEdit it looks a mess.
However, if I select Quick cleanup --> LFs-->CrRs (Unix-->Mac) in
TexEdit's tools menu then it gets formatted perfectly. I don't usually
go through this exercise with my own source code, because if I want to
tinker with it I go back to the original file as it was before it got
uploaded to a server running Unix. However, if I do do it (for example
with http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/homepage.htm) then the result is more
or less the same as with yours, in other words the formatting gets
screwed up and needs to be cleaned up before it will display properly
on the Mac.

I am desperately at sea
about how to set my text editor

I don't remember which editor you said you used (BBEdit?), but anyway,
it wasn't TexEdit. TexEdit (not to be confused with Apple's rudimentary
TextEdit, incidentally) is the only editor I normally use, but I
imagine other good editors offer the same Unix-->Mac conversion that
TexEdit does.

and/or my Cyberduck ftp program
and/or how much blame to apportion my server host. What are the
general causes of something looking mighty fine on the screen in
a text editor only to see later in the source code of some (I
emphasise some) of my website pages, no gaps between lines that
were there before, various bits bunched together and so on and so
forth. Perhaps my editor is too good and complicated and I am
lost in the variables of the enormous list of preferences.

As suggested above, I think the problems arise when it gets uploaded,
and there is probably nothing to do in the editor file. In any case,
the formatting looks fine if I display the source in any of the four
Mac browsers that I have installed (see above -- I used to have IE, but
I seem to have dumped it at some point), and that is all one normally
needs to do. Browsers don't care about formatting of source files, so
the only person who really needs to understand your source is you. If
others want to loook at it then they need to use a browser that
displays it properly. Maybe this is one of the things that Mac users
take for granted and that Windows users imagine to be impossible.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:26:01
GMT dorayme scribed:

Please speak more plainly. What is random and indiscriminate?

I fiddled about and for the first time in about 5 years I
actually used Tidy to reflow things. Usually I jam all up to the
left and set 72 chars and it does not seem too bad. Something
happened this time and you are on a war path. You know how
dangerous this is Boji.

The fixed-width mentality again. All you apparently should have to do is
convert to Unix line-endings _without_ setting a width. Others have
suggested it might be a server problem, and it could be - how would I
know?

If that doesn't work, get a decent computer and editor.

You are someone that my shrink says I should use mercilessly to
get things off my chest. You would be surprised to know that my
friends have been remarking on how amiable I have been and these
periods always coincide with our big fights.

Well, knowing your norm, they're probably just grateful for any respite.

In other words, you
are doing good by being beaten up by me.

'Beating up on you'?? -Oh, brother! Such supplicating pathos. I
believe your shrink needs to see a shrink, or at least someone who views
her/him as the opposite sex.

Photograph that rf. Why
don't you get a camera that does better than jpgs to _begin with_
(with a jpg it is all downhill from there... perhaps it the
downhill you like, being a skier)

Now you're picking on rf. You _do_ have a lot of issues...

 

[dorayme]

On 2007-08-23 23:55:07 +0200, dorayme <[email protected]> said:


Now it loads fine. In iCab the links work perfectly (with highlighting)
even when the window is small. Safari (2.0.4, i.e. the version that
came with my computer, now almost two years old) does a much worse job,
as you say, and not all links work. If I click on #RA_TK6, for example,
it fails to take me there, and I need to scroll.

Safari is not good at it!

The formatting looks just fine if I get iCab to display the source (or
Safari, Mozilla 1.7.3 or Firefox 1.5.0.3) for that matter), but if I
download your file and look at the source with TexEdit it looks a mess.
However, if I select Quick cleanup --> LFs-->CrRs (Unix-->Mac) in
TexEdit's tools menu then it gets formatted perfectly. I don't usually
go through this exercise with my own source code, because if I want to
tinker with it I go back to the original file as it was before it got
uploaded to a server running Unix. However, if I do do it (for example
with http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/homepage.htm) then the result is more
or less the same as with yours, in other words the formatting gets
screwed up and needs to be cleaned up before it will display properly
on the Mac.

Interesting. I have done a bit of digging on this since and that
mnay be why it is appearing better. Me too about editing, rarely
ever copy paste my code from browser's view source.
Interestingly, and more and more these days, I have been changing
some things directly on the server, so to speak. In CB when the
server files are showing you can double click and open the file
(it downloads it to my machine) in BBEdit. The file name shows an
underscore then. Make the changes and hit command S (Save) and
the CB FTP program file window notes the change and "uploads" it.
It is easier and quicker... but I am reflecting on the possible
effect of some of these practices. Talk about complications
between platforms. Much easier than 10 years back. But still some
way to go eh?

 

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Safari does not happily negotiate

http://tinyurl.com/24y5hp

iCab is quite simply brilliant, FF is fine. I don't know about
IE6 and 7, Mac IE is fine too.

Getting back to your original question, I imagine as you use iCab you
know about the iCab news group. My recollection (which I haven't
checked) is that when iCab introduced the highlighting of internal link
targets a couple of years ago there was some discussion of how to get
other browsers to do the same thing, and I think some suggestions
involving Javascript were made. As I normally avoid Javascript like the
plague I didn't follow this up (and after all, if people want a browser
that behaves like iCab they can get iCab). However, you may find some
useful suggestions there. I use the yahoo interface
(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/icab/messages), which isn't as
horrible as the googlegroups interface, though it's far from ideal and
I'm sure there is a news server somewhere that carries it (though I
haven't found it yet -- unfortunately it's not on news.indivdual.net).
If by some strange mishap you haven't come across this group, you'll
find that anything Sander Tekelenburg posts is worth reading, and some
of the other contributors also know what they're talking about.

 

[Nikita the Spider]

I fiddled about and I _think_ this is better... I changed a
setting in my editor, probably to do with line endings from Mac
to Unix.

The first four rows will be slightly different in source to the
rest because of a bit of hand attention, the rest were set auto
to 72 characters. What a distraction.

http://tinyurl.com/24y5hp

Ding! That did the trick. Save those settings!

 

[dorayme]

Getting back to your original question, I imagine as you use iCab you
know about the iCab news group. My recollection (which I haven't
checked) is that when iCab introduced the highlighting of internal link
targets a couple of years ago there was some discussion of how to get
other browsers to do the same thing, and I think some suggestions
involving Javascript were made. As I normally avoid Javascript like the
plague I didn't follow this up (and after all, if people want a browser
that behaves like iCab they can get iCab). However, you may find some
useful suggestions there. I use the yahoo interface
(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/icab/messages), which isn't as
horrible as the googlegroups interface, though it's far from ideal and
I'm sure there is a news server somewhere that carries it (though I
haven't found it yet -- unfortunately it's not on news.indivdual.net).
If by some strange mishap you haven't come across this group, you'll
find that anything Sander Tekelenburg posts is worth reading, and some
of the other contributors also know what they're talking about.

Thank you, Athel. If I get the time. I use iCab mainly to test
sites in, there are some very handy features. Now on Tiger, I use
Safari to look stuff up because it is so fast and clean. The
little project I was doing is not for me but for complete
strangers and they will probably be mostly using Win IE! It is
just that I noticed that internal linking feature in iCab
recently.