Hi
Know any good utilities to help me strip out the tags that
Microsoft Excel 2002 leaved behind when you try
and export an HTML format file?
This is driving me NUTS.
And really makes me hate microsoft with a passion.
I literally just want "compact HTML" - ie just the data,
plus the minimal table structure
and *NO FORMATTING CODES* of any sort!!
I did have a utility but it was on my previous PC
and I cant remember what it was called.
I would be prepared to pay no more than say GBP 10.00
for such a utility (which I only need every couple of months...)
Ship
Shiperton Henethe
p.s. I do have Dreamweaver 4, but it crashes every time it tries
to open the (2500 line) document exported from Microsoft Excel 2002!
Jul 20 '05
163  14468 
On 21 Sep 2003 11:11:07 +0100, Chris Morris wrote: karim <karim3411@!!yahoo!!.com> writes: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:59:24 +0000, Isofarro wrote: karim wrote:
Which ones by name?
Produce a list of all browsers, and I'll show you a list of browsers that
can return different user-agents.
You're the one who made a claim. Why should I do your homework. If you
claim there are browsers who lie about their identity, you should be able
to supply proof. I am the one asking you to tell me which browsers do that.
Fine, among others:
Opera (*defaults* to identifying as IE, can identify as Opera or various
Netscapes)
Konqueror (can identify as just about anything, including
various IEs, plugins available to make this easy)
Mozilla (can identify as just about anything, probably Netscape 6+ can
therefore be made to do the same, plugins available to make this easy)
IBM Home Page Reader (uses IE to get the page, so appears to be IE,
but its parsing and display is completely different) - similar
comments apply to other screen readers.
w3m (Freeform text entry available for UA, defaults to w3m)
wget (Freeform text entry available for UA, defaults to wget)
links (Freeform text entry available for UA, defaults to Links)
That's just the ones I can think of in a minute or so.
Also, any browser (including IE) can be put behind a proxy that will
rewrite the UA string to be an arbitrary string (including something
that appears to be IE)
I haven't looked at what various browsers indentify themselves as in their
*default* installation but I am sure if you look at the whole UA, there's
enough characters that can give you enough information about the browser's
identity. If I want to know if your browser is Opera, somewhere in the ua
it should have 'opera'.
The fact that you go in and change the ua yourself of course will cause the
website you visit think you're some other browser. I still question why you
would do this if you use one of the known browsers that obey html
standards. If you're using an html feature or some Javascript that doesn't
break properly in all the top 5-10 browsers, perhaps you should use a
workaround that does work. Instead of doing extensive browser sniffing, I
will use modern version 5+ features. I will also put a display to advice
the visitor to upgrade. If enough sites do this, the person will hopefully
upgrade. It's painful to build sites that satisfy all browsers.
Karim
karim wrote: The fact that you go in and change the ua yourself of course will cause the
website you visit think you're some other browser. I still question why you
would do this if you use one of the known browsers that obey html
standards.
Because the pages don't obey html standards?
--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:58:20 -0700, wrote: Also, any browser (including IE) can be put behind a proxy that will
rewrite the UA string to be an arbitrary string (including something
that appears to be IE)
I haven't looked at what various browsers indentify themselves as in
their
*default* installation but I am sure if you look at the whole UA, there's
enough characters that can give you enough information about the
browser's
identity. If I want to know if your browser is Opera, somewhere in the ua
it should have 'opera'.
It *does*.
Every Opera UA string contains the word "Opera", usually added to the
end. Even when spoofing, you can tell it's an Opera UA visiting, just by
searching for "Opera". Opera can obsfucate the UA string, but it does not
lie.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - ORCA - Camouflaged PHP Web Scripts.
In article <13******************************@40tude.net>,
karim <karim3411@!!yahoo!!.com> wrote: I haven't looked at what various browsers indentify themselves as in their
*default* installation but I am sure if you look at the whole UA, there's
enough characters that can give you enough information about the browser's
identity. If I want to know if your browser is Opera, somewhere in the ua
it should have 'opera'.
If I want to know if your browser is Moxilla, somewhere in the ua it
should have 'Mozilla'. True or False? False. The default User-Agent
from MSIE includes 'Mozilla'.
If I want to know if your browser is MSIE, somewhere in the ua it
should have 'MSIE'. True or False? False. The default User-Agent
from Opera includes 'MSIE'.
If I want to know if your browser is Opera, somewhere in the ua it
should have 'Opera'. True or False? False. The default User-Agent
from Loki includes 'Opera'.
If I want to know if your browser is Loki, somewhere in the ua it
should have 'Loki'. True or False? False. The default User-Agent
from Yaqui includes 'Loki'.
If I want to know if your browser is Yaqui, ...
--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/
Brian wrote: Jonathan Snook wrote:
With forging the UA string, the web page author never know what
browser they are getting. Therefore, they should develop for all
browsers to make sure.
...which surely is the easiest route.
certainly seems to be the route of least resistance. I guess it depends on
how well one sleeps at night. It does seem that there are lots of folk
building pages the hard way.
--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Alan J. Flavell wrote: I find it rather instructive that so many web authors appear to
believe that IE is in need of having web pages constructed
specifically for itself: they must believe that it's incapable of
browsing web pages that have been made for the World Wide Web.
They believe it because it is true. Currently my 'adjustments for agents
other than Presto and Gecko' list is quite small:
- send as text/html instead of application/xhtml+xml
- omit the XML prologue and XML-stylesheet linking instructions (this
will kick IE6/Win into standards mode)
I do it by sniffing the 'Accept' header rather than 'User-Agent' though,
which is hopefully more reliable and more flexible (i.e. when Microsoft
finally get their heads around XHTML they'll probably start sending
'application/xhtml+xml' in their Accept header too.)
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 19:36:38 GMT, Goran Larsson wrote: In article <13******************************@40tude.net>,
karim <karim3411@!!yahoo!!.com> wrote:
I haven't looked at what various browsers indentify themselves as in their
*default* installation but I am sure if you look at the whole UA, there's
enough characters that can give you enough information about the browser's
identity. If I want to know if your browser is Opera, somewhere in the ua
it should have 'opera'.
If I want to know if your browser is Moxilla, somewhere in the ua it
should have 'Mozilla'. True or False? False. The default User-Agent
from MSIE includes 'Mozilla'.
If I want to know if your browser is MSIE, somewhere in the ua it
should have 'MSIE'. True or False? False. The default User-Agent
from Opera includes 'MSIE'.
If I want to know if your browser is Opera, somewhere in the ua it
should have 'Opera'. True or False? False. The default User-Agent
from Loki includes 'Opera'.
If I want to know if your browser is Loki, somewhere in the ua it
should have 'Loki'. True or False? False. The default User-Agent
from Yaqui includes 'Loki'.
If I want to know if your browser is Yaqui, ...
Like I said before, the ua has enough information to determine which
browser it is. If it contains opera and msie, it's opera and it's not ie.
If it contains msie and mozilla it's msie and not mozilla and so on.
Loki and similar browsers that use ua's with insufficient data are
misleading. Maybe it's one of those browsers that uses another browser's
engine, I think it's ok if the ua has the main browser type.
Anyone can create their own browser by easily plugging in the IE browser
control and name their browser Johnny's browser. I as a webmaster want to
see IE in my logs instead of 'Johnny'.
Karim
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:14:34 +0200, Bertilo Wennergren wrote: karim wrote:
The fact that you go in and change the ua yourself of course will cause the
website you visit think you're some other browser. I still question why you
would do this if you use one of the known browsers that obey html
standards.
Because the pages don't obey html standards?
Wouldn't it be easier to switch to another browser momentarily just for
that problematic site than messing with the UA then switching it back after
you're done?
Karim
karim wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to switch to another browser momentarily just
for
that problematic site than messing with the UA then switching it back
after you're done?
If they are blocking anything other than IE, and you are running *nix, for
example, you are supposed to switch to IE _how_ exactly?
--
Mark Parnell http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Toby A Inkster wrote: I do it by sniffing the 'Accept' header rather than 'User-Agent' though,
An excellent web engineering principle, indeed
which is hopefully more reliable and more flexible (i.e. when Microsoft
finally get their heads around XHTML they'll probably start sending
'application/xhtml+xml' in their Accept header too.)
I'll believe that when I see it, but at least if they asked for it
then they'll get what they asked for, and have no grounds to complain.
After all, when they're fetching <img src=...> at the moment they send
me Accept: */*, so I'm happy to send them anything that I feel like.
But can they cope with it? Of course not. They never really did
grok HTTP, and I don't suppose they ever will.
In article <4s***************************@40tude.net>,
karim <karim3411@!!yahoo!!.com> wrote: Like I said before, the ua has enough information to determine which
browser it is.
With the plurality of User-Agent strings in use today it requires AI to
make a good guess. The simple ad-hoc string matching used by sites today
can never be sure if their guess is right.
If it contains opera and msie, it's opera and it's not ie.
It could be Loki saying that it is compatible with Opera, just like
Opera is saying that it is compatible with MSIE and MSIE is saying
that it is compatible with Mozilla -- or perhaps not.
Loki and similar browsers that use ua's with insufficient data are
misleading.
Lynx/2.7.1 (somewhat compatible with Mozilla, MSIE, Opera) libwww-FM/2.14
Is this misleading?
What browser could it be?
What browser will it be detected as?
--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/
Goran Larsson wrote: Lynx/2.7.1 (somewhat compatible with Mozilla, MSIE, Opera) libwww-FM/2.14
Is this misleading?
What browser could it be?
What browser will it be detected as?
Yaqui of course :-)
karim <karim3411@!!yahoo!!.com> writes: On 21 Sep 2003 11:16:09 +0100, Chris Morris wrote: See my other post, but ignore the entry for Opera, then. All the
others are capable of *easily* looking *exactly* like Internet
Explorer or indeed any other browser. Opera is probably capable of it
too, but it just isn't particularly easy to configure it to do so.
Do they ramdonly make up an identity or you're going to have to change it
yourself?
Varies. Some let you select from a list (or have a plugin that lets
you), some let you do free text entry (or have a plugin that lets
you), some do both.
--
Chris
"Shiperton Henethe" <sh*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3f***********************@news.easynet.co.uk >... Hi
Know any good utilities to help me strip out the tags that
Microsoft Excel 2002 leaved behind when you try
and export an HTML format file?
This is driving me NUTS.
And really makes me hate microsoft with a passion.
Good :-)
I literally just want "compact HTML" - ie just the data,
plus the minimal table structure
and *NO FORMATTING CODES* of any sort!!
I did have a utility but it was on my previous PC
and I cant remember what it was called.
I would be prepared to pay no more than say GBP 10.00
for such a utility (which I only need every couple of months...)
Perhaps jedit http://jedit.org/ with the jtidy and xml plugins would do the trick?
Ship
Shiperton Henethe
p.s. I do have Dreamweaver 4, but it crashes every time it tries
to open the (2500 line) document exported from Microsoft Excel 2002!
---
Steve Ferguson - Founder
Illumit L.L.C. - http://illumit.com/ This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
