On 13 Jan 2009 "Torrens (lists)" wrote:
> http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14177/css/14177_35.htm
> has bad text overlap problems.
Not here with RISC OS 5.13 and NetSurf r6029. Looks OK to me.
> It's a pigs-ear of an html, using lots of text position information in
> the css! I suspect if NS
In article <501ce66c00li...@torrens.org.uk>, Torrens (lists)
wrote:
> http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14177/css/14177_35.htm
> has bad text overlap problems. It's a pigs-ear of an html, using lots
> of text position information in the css! I suspect if NS can work
> that it can work miracles!
In article <501ceafb6eba...@e-allen.me.uk>,
Barry E Allen wrote:
> I have similar problems with my TalkTalk bill which all comes out on one
> line.
> see:-
> http://www.bparkfc.plus.com/allen/talktalkbill.html
That looks like it's suffering from the same problem as a friend of mine's
websit
In article <50a9e71c50.pnyo...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
Dr Peter Young wrote:
> > http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14177/css/14177_35.htm
> > has bad text overlap problems.
> Not here with RISC OS 5.13 and NetSurf r6029. Looks OK to me.
Nor here with RO 6.14 and r6035.
--
David Wild using RI
In article <50a9e71c50.pnyo...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
Dr Peter Young wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2009 "Torrens (lists)" wrote:
> > http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14177/css/14177_35.htm
> > has bad text overlap problems.
> Not here with RISC OS 5.13 and NetSurf r6029. Looks OK to me.
So there mu
In article <501ceafb6eba...@e-allen.me.uk>,
Barry E Allen wrote:
> In article <501ce66c00li...@torrens.org.uk>, Torrens (lists)
> wrote:
> > http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14177/css/14177_35.htm
> > has bad text overlap problems. It's a pigs-ear of an html, using lots
> > of text position
In article <20090113095326.589eb...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> If this is the case, the solution is to make NetSurf render the tool's
> output, not for you to complain at him about it.
The tools in this case declare themselves as:
Yahoo! SiteBuilder/2.6/1.6
In article <501cf02066li...@torrens.org.uk>,
Torrens (lists) wrote:
> I looked around a bit. Plus.net's pages validate with very few errors. I
> am in process of swapping to them - I have yet to find anything on
> Plus.net that doesn't work properly with Netsurf! Support is via the www
> site
On 13 Jan 2009 "Torrens (lists)" wrote:
> In article <50a9e71c50.pnyo...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,
>Dr Peter Young wrote:
>> On 13 Jan 2009 "Torrens (lists)" wrote:
>>> http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14177/css/14177_35.htm
>>> has bad text overlap problems.
>> Not here with RISC OS 5.1
In article <20090113095326.589eb...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> If people can deconstruct the HTML and make a minimal test case, that'll
> help us towards that.
Well, from a quick look at my friends page, removing the following couple
of lines makes the top half of t
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:42:15 + (GMT)
Paul Vigay wrote:
> In article <501ceafb6eba...@e-allen.me.uk>,
>Barry E Allen wrote:
>
> > I have similar problems with my TalkTalk bill which all comes out
> > on one line.
>
> > see:-
>
> > http://www.bparkfc.plus.com/allen/talktalkbill.html
>
In article <20090113095326.589eb...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> If this is the case, the solution is to make NetSurf render the tool's
> output, not for you to complain at him about it.
> If people can deconstruct the HTML and make a minimal test case,
> that'll help
In article <20090113095326.589eb...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>, Rob
Kendrick wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:42:15 + (GMT) Paul Vigay
> wrote:
> > In article <501ceafb6eba...@e-allen.me.uk>, Barry E Allen
> > wrote:
[Snip]
> > > http://www.bparkfc.plus.com/allen/talktalkbill.html
>
In article <501cf6213eli...@torrens.org.uk>,
Torrens (lists) wrote:
> www.torrens.org.uk/NetSurf/0001.html
> one minimal page that shows the problem. As it seems to be settings
> dependant, the same directory holds a copy of my
> !Boot.Choices.Users.Single.WWW.NetSurf.Choices and a screen shot
In article <501cf68db3...@timil.com>,
Tim Hill wrote:
> Should (does) NS assume pixels, points or parsecs when no units are
> present?
Looking at various rogue sites (or rather sites which NetSurf won't render)
it looks like the browser should assume that any values without a unit are
pixels
Torrens (lists) wrote on 13 Jan:
> www.torrens.org.uk/NetSurf/0001.html
> one minimal page that shows the problem. As it seems to be settings
> dependant, the same directory holds a copy of my
> !Boot.Choices.Users.Single.WWW.NetSurf.Choices
> and a screen shot of the Netsurf window as it renders.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:57:18 + (GMT)
Tim Hill wrote:
> Dare I say that I passed the phone bill though a CSS validator which
> came up with many "You must put an unit after your number" (two for
> each positioning element 'top' and 'left'in each page). But I know
> I'll be told Validators are
In article <501cf901f1lists-nos...@vigay.com>,
Paul Vigay wrote:
> In article <501cf68db3...@timil.com>,
>Tim Hill wrote:
> > Should (does) NS assume pixels, points or parsecs when no units are
> > present?
> Looking at various rogue sites (or rather sites which NetSurf won't
> render) i
In article <20090113114838.611e0...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
Rob Kendrick wrote:
> But I know
> > I'll be told Validators are crap and a waste of time, irrelevant, and
> > should all be expunged so I'll shut up soon.
[Snip]
> So yes, from
> the point of view of web browser developmen
In article <26ccfa1c50@jim.nagel.ukonline.co.uk>,
Jim Nagel wrote:
> Torrens (lists) wrote on 13 Jan:
> > www.torrens.org.uk/NetSurf/0001.html
> > one minimal page that shows the problem. As it seems to be settings
> > dependant, the same directory holds a copy of my
> > !Boot.Choices.Users
In article <501cf6213eli...@torrens.org.uk>,
Torrens (lists) wrote:
> one minimal page that shows the problem. As it seems to be settings
> dependant, the same directory holds a copy of my
> !Boot.Choices.Users.Single.WWW.NetSurf.Choices
> and a screen shot of the Netsurf window as it renders.
As font sizes greater than the default don't work, how do I set 140% as
the default Scale view for all pages?
Do I detect another Choices config coming up? Or can a default
magnification be added to Font sizes?
--
Richard Torrens.
http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild fo
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:29:31 + (GMT)
"Torrens (lists)" wrote:
> As font sizes greater than the default don't work, how do I set 140%
> as the default Scale view for all pages?
>
> Do I detect another Choices config coming up? Or can a default
> magnification be added to Font sizes?
I seem t
23 matches
Mail list logo