[Home] [Downloads] [Search] [Help/forum]

Gammon Forum

See www.mushclient.com/spam for dealing with forum spam. Please read the MUSHclient FAQ!

[Folder]  Entire forum
-> [Folder]  Forum
. -> [Folder]  Problems
. . -> [Subject]  Code tag on Firefox
Home  |  Users  |  Search  |  FAQ
Username:
Register forum user name
Password:
Forgotten password?

Code tag on Firefox

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.     [Refresh] Refresh page


Pages: 1  2  3 

Posted by Nick Gammon   Australia  (21,607 posts)  [Biography] bio   Forum Administrator
Date Reply #30 on Sun 04 Dec 2005 07:00 PM (UTC)

Amended on Sun 04 Dec 2005 07:01 PM (UTC) by Nick Gammon

Message
I don't totally agree with this. For any web browser to say "it makes no claims regarding rendering incorrect code at all", I don't think you would sell, or give away, a single copy.

There must be millions of web pages that have non-complying HTML. Just as an example picked at random, I tried a page from Microsoft's own web site:

http://www.microsoft.com/games/default.aspx

The validation for that failed with 48 errors, including:

"No DOCTYPE found! Attempting validation with XHTML 1.0 Transitional."!

Now if one of Microsoft's main web pages has 48 errors, and bear in mind they make software to generate web pages so they should know what they are doing, what hope does the ordinary developer have?

Web browsers, by their nature, know they are going to get incorrect HTML a lot of the time, and have to try to render them in a reasonably useful and meaningful way.

I am a developer and understand the concept of "behaviour is undefined if you do X", for example if you use a pointer without initialising it, the behaviour is undefined because of the random data that is probably in that memory location.

However, a web browser that simply receives tags out of order, is hardly the same thing as using an uninitialised memory address.

Put it this way, I have been using Firefox for about 3 days now, and am typing this message in using it. In that time I have already had one crash (access violation) which closed all the Firefox windows I had open. I hope they aren't going to try to justify that as "well, you must have got bad HTML so we are entitled to crash". It's a bug, pure and simple.

So is re-rendering a page differently every time you hit refresh.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com
[Go to top] top

Posted by Samson   USA  (683 posts)  [Biography] bio
Date Reply #31 on Mon 05 Dec 2005 03:16 AM (UTC)
Message
In that case then IE and Opera both have the same rerendering bug because I've tested both against your site and seen similar results with the code tag. Undefined behaviour is undefined behaviour, regardless of the browser used.

This obviously does not excuse whatever casued FF to crash for you, and if you sent the Talkback report on it they do monitor those.

I have been using Firefox now since they were version 0.2 and called Phoenix and to date I have not had anything serious come about from an actual release version. One can expect crashes on their alpha or beta lines but the releases have all been rock solid.

Relying on Microsoft as an example of who does things right is laughable at best when it comes to web standards. Even they admit this in their IE7 developer blogs. IE bugs are well known and very frustrating to web developers everywhere.

In any case, I'm still toying with the source capture from this very topic to see what I can come up with. Although as I said before current forum source would help alot :)

SmaugMuds.org: http://www.smaugmuds.org - The Smaug MUDs Community Center

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." -- George Orwell, 1984
[Go to top] top

Posted by Metsuro   USA  (389 posts)  [Biography] bio
Date Reply #32 on Mon 05 Dec 2005 03:43 AM (UTC)
Message
You know I've never had Firefox ever crash <.<

Everything turns around in the end
[Go to top] top

Posted by Nick Gammon   Australia  (21,607 posts)  [Biography] bio   Forum Administrator
Date Reply #33 on Mon 05 Dec 2005 05:48 AM (UTC)
Message
Quote:

Relying on Microsoft as an example of who does things right is laughable at best when it comes to web standards.


I know, I am just saying that if Microsoft don't have it right, and they have a huge number of web pages, then there must be an awful lot of "undefined behaviour" around.

I tried:

http://www.apple.com/

3 validation errors.

http://www.php.net/

10 validation errors.

http://www.google.com.au/

41 validation errors.

I would like to fix up my HTML, my point being that "invalid" HTML is somewhat of the rule.

BTW, all of the sites on Samson's signature passed validation, well done! :)

Quote:

Although as I said before current forum source would help alot :)


You are welcome to it, I just need to make sure that it will run, by dumping the database declarations too. Sometimes when I add a new feature it also needs a new field on the database, and without that, you may get errors on select statements etc.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com
[Go to top] top

Posted by Samson   USA  (683 posts)  [Biography] bio
Date Reply #34 on Mon 05 Dec 2005 10:14 AM (UTC)
Message
I hear ya on the invalid HTML being the rule more than the exception. I don't think in this case that it's the number of validation errors you get, a couple of simple changes to the source capture I did dropped it in half by removing just one font tag. In this case here I think it's mainly the font tags which are causing all the grief. Alot of size=1 and size=-1 but if I recall correctly these are all relative and should be based on something defined but I'm not seeing that, so maybe that's what the browsers keep choking on?

My sites took a great deal of time to fix up, it wasn't easy given the code I started with but if you look carefully even with perfect validation IE still slightly skews one of the div borders on the right side of the afkmud and smaugfuss pages. Validation isn't the cureall, but it goes a long way toward curbing undefined results.

SmaugMuds.org: http://www.smaugmuds.org - The Smaug MUDs Community Center

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." -- George Orwell, 1984
[Go to top] top

Posted by Nick Gammon   Australia  (21,607 posts)  [Biography] bio   Forum Administrator
Date Reply #35 on Tue 06 Dec 2005 03:08 AM (UTC)
Message
Well, I'm making progress. My main forum page now validates as HTML 4.01. See what you think. Some pages may not validate, especially those which I did my own HTML in.

Let me know if you find any particularly bad examples. Especially standard "generated" pages, once the problem is fixed, it should be fixed for all instances of it.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com
[Go to top] top

Posted by Samson   USA  (683 posts)  [Biography] bio
Date Reply #36 on Tue 06 Dec 2005 03:18 AM (UTC)
Message
Did a quick scan of a few random pages, only coming up with one validation failure now on the textarea tags for inputting stuff, like this reply, saying that the "wrap" attribute is not valid. I'd ignore that one though as we also ignore complaints about it with Quicksilver Forums since there is no other method we've found yet to allow our text boxes that need to turn wrapping off to do so without causing serious problems.

Also no longer seeing inconsistent code tag sizes. I think whatever was causing all the various validation problems had something to do with it. Most likely the interaction of the font tags with each other.

SmaugMuds.org: http://www.smaugmuds.org - The Smaug MUDs Community Center

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." -- George Orwell, 1984
[Go to top] top

Posted by Nick Gammon   Australia  (21,607 posts)  [Biography] bio   Forum Administrator
Date Reply #37 on Tue 06 Dec 2005 04:21 AM (UTC)
Message
Quote:

The default monospace font in FF is 3 or 4 sizes smaller than for proportional.


Why is this anyway? Is it to annoy people who are trying to mix monospace and proportional fonts on a page? Surely if I want my monospaced font smaller I tell the browser with a "size" tag? Especially as IE doesn't seem to do that.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com
[Go to top] top

Posted by Samson   USA  (683 posts)  [Biography] bio
Date Reply #38 on Tue 06 Dec 2005 11:29 AM (UTC)
Message
Got me on the monospace font thing. I haven't noticed anything about it until you mentioned it. Perhaps I've just never tried to mix the two and other sites I frequent don't either? Might be something to file in the Firefox bugzilla.

SmaugMuds.org: http://www.smaugmuds.org - The Smaug MUDs Community Center

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." -- George Orwell, 1984
[Go to top] top

The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).

To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.


28,494 views.

This is page 3, subject is 3 pages long:  [Previous page]  1  2  3 

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.     [Refresh] Refresh page

Go to topic:           Search the forum


[Go to top] top

Quick links: MUSHclient. MUSHclient help. Forum shortcuts. Posting templates. Lua modules. Lua documentation.

Information and images on this site are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License unless stated otherwise.

[Home]


Written by Nick Gammon - 5K   profile for Nick Gammon on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&A sites   Marriage equality

Comments to: Gammon Software support
[RH click to get RSS URL] Forum RSS feed ( https://gammon.com.au/rss/forum.xml )

[Best viewed with any browser - 2K]    [Hosted at FutureQuest]