By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,694 Members | 1,795 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,694 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

IE cannot open the Internet site ... Operation aborted

P: n/a
Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.

We have a page which has been working great for over a year and gets many
hits. However recently something got changed that we cannot seem to find,
and now *sometimes* if you refresh the page (generally while it is still
loading) in IE7, we get the popup window error:

Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
Operation aborted

Here is an example of the page in question:
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr [broadband recommended]

We appreciate you may have other comments on the site such as the size of
the pages, however we are not looking to change that at present, with faster
broadband becoming more abundant. Search engine listings alert the user
that broadband is recommended for this technology.

As we said, the site worked great, but for this unknown reason now needs
some sort of a tweak to fix. The changes we made before it happened were
related to the body tag but they have been completely undone yet the issue
remains :-S

Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

Regards,
Mika @ SHS.com
Nov 16 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
64 Replies


P: n/a
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:12:37
GMT Mika scribed:
Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.

We have a page which has been working great for over a year and gets
many hits. However recently something got changed that we cannot seem
to find, and now *sometimes* if you refresh the page (generally while
it is still loading) in IE7, we get the popup window error:

Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
Operation aborted

Here is an example of the page in question:
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr [broadband recommended]

We appreciate you may have other comments on the site such as the size
of the pages, however we are not looking to change that at present,
with faster broadband becoming more abundant. Search engine listings
alert the user that broadband is recommended for this technology.

As we said, the site worked great, but for this unknown reason now
needs some sort of a tweak to fix. The changes we made before it
happened were related to the body tag but they have been completely
undone yet the issue remains :-S

Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.
I did a refresh-while-loading in Opera and got tons of errors, probably
related to the javascript (...apparently being interrupted). Oth, a
refresh-post-load produced no errors in the same browser. Ergo, I suspect
that the abundant j/s is causing the problem. Suggest you try ie7 without
the j/s on.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Nov 16 '07 #2

P: n/a

"Bone Ur" <mo*************@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:Xn*************************@85.214.90.236...
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:12:37
GMT Mika scribed:
>Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.

We have a page which has been working great for over a year and gets
many hits. However recently something got changed that we cannot seem
to find, and now *sometimes* if you refresh the page (generally while
it is still loading) in IE7, we get the popup window error:

Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
Operation aborted

Here is an example of the page in question:
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr [broadband recommended]

We appreciate you may have other comments on the site such as the size
of the pages, however we are not looking to change that at present,
with faster broadband becoming more abundant. Search engine listings
alert the user that broadband is recommended for this technology.

As we said, the site worked great, but for this unknown reason now
needs some sort of a tweak to fix. The changes we made before it
happened were related to the body tag but they have been completely
undone yet the issue remains :-S

Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

I did a refresh-while-loading in Opera and got tons of errors, probably
related to the javascript (...apparently being interrupted). Oth, a
refresh-post-load produced no errors in the same browser. Ergo, I suspect
that the abundant j/s is causing the problem. Suggest you try ie7 without
the j/s on.
Thanks Bone, however as j/s in crucial we wonder if there is a workaround
you can think of to this?
Nov 16 '07 #3

P: n/a

"Bone Ur" <mo*************@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:Xn*************************@85.214.90.236...
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:12:37
GMT Mika scribed:
>Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.

We have a page which has been working great for over a year and gets
many hits. However recently something got changed that we cannot seem
to find, and now *sometimes* if you refresh the page (generally while
it is still loading) in IE7, we get the popup window error:

Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
Operation aborted

Here is an example of the page in question:
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr [broadband recommended]

We appreciate you may have other comments on the site such as the size
of the pages, however we are not looking to change that at present,
with faster broadband becoming more abundant. Search engine listings
alert the user that broadband is recommended for this technology.

As we said, the site worked great, but for this unknown reason now
needs some sort of a tweak to fix. The changes we made before it
happened were related to the body tag but they have been completely
undone yet the issue remains :-S

Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

I did a refresh-while-loading in Opera and got tons of errors, probably
related to the javascript (...apparently being interrupted). Oth, a
refresh-post-load produced no errors in the same browser. Ergo, I suspect
that the abundant j/s is causing the problem. Suggest you try ie7 without
the j/s on.
PS: Due to Opera functionality limitations (partly on the width of
streetscape pages) that browser is not supported by our site, although what
you found out is interesting.
Nov 16 '07 #4

P: n/a
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:07:09
GMT Mika scribed:
>>Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

I did a refresh-while-loading in Opera and got tons of errors,
probably related to the javascript (...apparently being interrupted).
Oth, a refresh-post-load produced no errors in the same browser.
Ergo, I suspect that the abundant j/s is causing the problem.
Suggest you try ie7 without the j/s on.

PS: Due to Opera functionality limitations (partly on the width of
streetscape pages) that browser is not supported by our site, although
what you found out is interesting.
I notice you're using an "shtml" extension, but...

Here's something to try. I emphasize it's just a test. Change your
extension to php and see what happens. (I hope your server supports it.)
The idea relates to caching; who knows, maybe it'll make a difference.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Nov 16 '07 #5

P: n/a
"Bone Ur" <mo*************@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:Xn*************************@85.214.90.236...
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:07:09
GMT Mika scribed:
>>>Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

I did a refresh-while-loading in Opera and got tons of errors,
probably related to the javascript (...apparently being interrupted).
Oth, a refresh-post-load produced no errors in the same browser.
Ergo, I suspect that the abundant j/s is causing the problem.
Suggest you try ie7 without the j/s on.

PS: Due to Opera functionality limitations (partly on the width of
streetscape pages) that browser is not supported by our site, although
what you found out is interesting.

I notice you're using an "shtml" extension, but...

Here's something to try. I emphasize it's just a test. Change your
extension to php and see what happens. (I hope your server supports it.)
The idea relates to caching; who knows, maybe it'll make a difference.
It seems to work! Can anyone replicate the old bug at the new php page?
http://tinyurl.com/324enb
Nov 16 '07 #6

P: n/a
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Oh that site...I remember a what was it a couple of year ago...
Not sure how my "s" wandered all the way from.............^
>
Well if there was ever a concept not conducive to html, this is it! What
you really want is Flash, (Yes Travis, if he really want to do this
thing Flash would be far better) sand progressively load sections...
all the way down here!.............^

Damn gypsy "s"!
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 17 '07 #7

P: n/a
VK
Accidentally I have read this thread and I noticed that the KB article
I linked in "Active time for HTTP connection" thread may be giving
another possible hint:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813827

"If you set the KeepAliveTimeout value to less than 60,000 (one
minute), you may have problems communicating with Web servers that
require persistent HTTP connections. For example, you may receive a
"Page cannot be displayed" error message."

It may be possible that some visitors have KeepAliveTimeout manually
set to too short, or that for some requests the inactivity period goes
beyond the default allowed 60,000ms

I cannot reproduce your problem neither in IE6 nor IE7 so just
guessing. If you have a machine stable reproducing the problem, then I
would check one by one:
1) HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion
\InternetSettings
Try to set KeepAliveTimeout DWORD value to 180000 and add new key
ServerInfoTimeout with DWORD value to 180000

2) Tools :: Internet Options :: Advanced :: HTTP 1.1 settings :: check
on "Use HTTP 1.1 through proxy connections"
(default is off)
Nov 17 '07 #8

P: n/a
"VK" <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:3b**********************************@n20g2000 hsh.googlegroups.com...
Accidentally I have read this thread and I noticed that the KB article
I linked in "Active time for HTTP connection" thread may be giving
another possible hint:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813827

"If you set the KeepAliveTimeout value to less than 60,000 (one
minute), you may have problems communicating with Web servers that
require persistent HTTP connections. For example, you may receive a
"Page cannot be displayed" error message."
Thank you however that is not the error message we receive. 'Operation
aborted' is the error, and only when refreshing the page whilst it is still
loading. I do not feel this error is likely to relate, but thank you
anyway...
It may be possible that some visitors have KeepAliveTimeout manually
set to too short, or that for some requests the inactivity period goes
beyond the default allowed 60,000ms

I cannot reproduce your problem neither in IE6 nor IE7 so just
guessing. If you have a machine stable reproducing the problem, then I
would check one by one:
Have you tried refreshing the page multiple times whilst it is still
loading? The error does not occur every time.
1) HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion
\InternetSettings
Try to set KeepAliveTimeout DWORD value to 180000 and add new key
ServerInfoTimeout with DWORD value to 180000

2) Tools :: Internet Options :: Advanced :: HTTP 1.1 settings :: check
on "Use HTTP 1.1 through proxy connections"
(default is off)

Nov 17 '07 #9

P: n/a
VK
Thank you however that is not the error message we receive. 'Operation
aborted' is the error, and only when refreshing the page whilst it is still
loading.
Then the KISS rules as usual I guess... :-)

http://www.ryangrant.net/archives/in...google-map-api

Nov 17 '07 #10

P: n/a
VK
On Nov 17, 11:06 pm, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.comwrote:
Then the KISS rules as usual I guess... :-)
"KISS rulez" of course :-)

P.S. KISS: a Silicon Valley programming community acronym staying from
"Keep It Simple, Stupid"
A humorous variation of Occam's razor.
In my last post targeted to myself, not to OP.
Nov 17 '07 #11

P: n/a

"VK" <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:08**********************************@a28g2000 hsc.googlegroups.com...
>Thank you however that is not the error message we receive. 'Operation
aborted' is the error, and only when refreshing the page whilst it is
still
loading.

Then the KISS rules as usual I guess... :-)

http://www.ryangrant.net/archives/in...google-map-api
Well thank you for that link. We have spent 2 hours trying every solution
that would work for our page.

The basic idea is to move the Google Maps j/s (the culprit along with IE)
*outside* the body tags. Give it an out of body experience.

This did indeed fix the bug however it also introduced a problem with the
start percentage j/s we had to show FF where to begin showing the street
(e.g. it shows Oxford Street starting in the middle).

So frustrating as that is the solution, but Google Maps j/s doesn't like
being outside the body tag for some advanced options.

I wonder if anyone has any other ideas along these lines?
Nov 17 '07 #12

P: n/a
On Nov 16, 12:12 pm, "Mika" <a...@anon.comwrote:
Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.

We have a page which has been working great for over a year and gets many
hits. However recently something got changed that we cannot seem to find,
and now *sometimes* if you refresh the page (generally while it is still
loading) in IE7, we get the popup window error:

Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
Operation aborted

Here is an example of the page in question:http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr[broadband recommended]

We appreciate you may have other comments on the site such as the size of
the pages, however we are not looking to change that at present, with faster
broadband becoming more abundant. Search engine listings alert the user
that broadband is recommended for this technology.

As we said, the site worked great, but for this unknown reason now needs
some sort of a tweak to fix. The changes we made before it happened were
related to the body tag but they have been completely undone yet the issue
remains :-S

Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

Regards,
Mika @ SHS.com
I don't know how accurate this is... but I read once that tables kind
of 'render twice' in most browsers (now don't flame me, I can't
remember why or where or if this was true...) but I had the same sort
of issue! Turns out, I had a large table containing my google map. I
was trying to modify my google map after it displayed on the screen,
but not necessarily after page load. I then put it into the onload
function - my call to modify my map. This then made my error HARDLY
reproducable. After searching around, I had the hunch that I should
remove the table from the layout of that code (I inherited the site in
table format - and boss man wanted the map in there pronto - no
'fixing' stupid things... like layout with table). I redesigned that
one page to not use any tables, and my error went away.

Food for thought, my friend. Good luck.
Nov 18 '07 #13

P: n/a

"Mika" <an**@anon.comwrote in message
news:p4*******************@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.

We have a page which has been working great for over a year and gets many
hits. However recently something got changed that we cannot seem to find,
and now *sometimes* if you refresh the page (generally while it is still
loading) in IE7, we get the popup window error:

Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
Operation aborted

Here is an example of the page in question:
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr [broadband recommended]

We appreciate you may have other comments on the site such as the size of
the pages, however we are not looking to change that at present, with
faster broadband becoming more abundant. Search engine listings alert the
user that broadband is recommended for this technology.

As we said, the site worked great, but for this unknown reason now needs
some sort of a tweak to fix. The changes we made before it happened were
related to the body tag but they have been completely undone yet the issue
remains :-S

Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

Regards,
Mika @ SHS.com
Well we just reverted to a backup of the site, and noted we had removed the
following apparently redundant CSS:
Nov 18 '07 #14

P: n/a

"Mika" <an**@anon.comwrote in message
news:p4*******************@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.

We have a page which has been working great for over a year and gets many
hits. However recently something got changed that we cannot seem to find,
and now *sometimes* if you refresh the page (generally while it is still
loading) in IE7, we get the popup window error:

Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
Operation aborted

Here is an example of the page in question:
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr [broadband recommended]

We appreciate you may have other comments on the site such as the size of
the pages, however we are not looking to change that at present, with
faster broadband becoming more abundant. Search engine listings alert the
user that broadband is recommended for this technology.

As we said, the site worked great, but for this unknown reason now needs
some sort of a tweak to fix. The changes we made before it happened were
related to the body tag but they have been completely undone yet the issue
remains :-S

Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

Regards,
Mika @ SHS.com
Well we just restored a backup of the site and noted that we had removed the
following apparently redundant CSS:

<style type="text/css">
..style1 {
text-align: left;
}
..style32 {
text-align: center;
}
..style38 {
text-align: center;
}
..style39 {
color: #000000;
}
</style>

Reinstating this seems to have fixed the IE bug! Can anyone get the
'Operation aborted' window to appear now by refreshing this page WHILST it
is still working?
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

There was a mention to some style code in one of the fixes for this known IE
bug. Anyway, it now appears to be resolved.

Thanks for all the tips. Hopefully MS will fix the bug before even more
programmers hate their browser, even if the majority of public don't.
Nov 18 '07 #15

P: n/a
In article <4b**********************************@w28g2000hsf. googlegroups.com>, VK <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
>On Nov 17, 11:06 pm, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.comwrote:
>Then the KISS rules as usual I guess... :-)

"KISS rulez" of course :-)

P.S. KISS: a Silicon Valley programming community acronym staying from
"Keep It Simple, Stupid"
Phooey. "KISS" is much, much older than the Silicon Valley programming
community.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Nov 18 '07 #16

P: n/a
Mika wrote:
Just as a point of interest, we chose HTML and j/s as the ability to add
affiliates' HTML and j/s 'eposters' to shop windows, draw imagemaps around
shop doors, and regularly update links etc. was much more straightforward if
using the same language the actual links use.

Also, loading the whole street first using Flash would have been necessary,
thus taking longer.
No at Flash expert, maybe Travis can offer more precise info, but it is
my understanding that Flash can do sequential loading and that it would
not be necessary to load the whole shabang.
If you notice at Oxford Street for example, it loads
each street 1 chunk ahead of where you are walking, and only once you walk
towards it. This appears seamless, but it is constantly loading and
unloading image blocks from memory - so it only ever loads what it needs to.
It's quite efficient and we're quite proud of the j/s code we developed
which interacts with the Google Maps interface. Getting Google Maps and all
affiliate links and banners to interact with Flash would *not*, we feel,
have been 'far better' :) Hope you can agree now we've clarified.
Actually no I have no idea since I am stuck on dialup a webpage of a
*mere* 5-6mb is not quite accessible...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 18 '07 #17

P: n/a
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:15:41 GMT, in comp.lang.javascript "Mika"
<an**@anon.com>
<xG*******************@text.news.blueyonder.co.ukw rote:
>| "Jeff North" <jn******@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
| news:j9********************************@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:12:37 GMT, in comp.lang.javascript "Mika"
| <an**@anon.com>
| <p4*******************@text.news.blueyonder.co.ukw rote:
| >
| >>| Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.
[snip]
>| >>| Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
| >>| Operation aborted
| >>|
| >>| Here is an example of the page in question:
| >>| http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr [broadband recommended]
[snip]
>| I'd fix up the errors/warnings within the html first.
| -----------------------------------------------------
| Result: 0 errors / 139 warnings
[snip]
>| Thanks. There are no "errors" that we know of or can see, although there
| are some warnings which do not affect the end result so can be ignored.
|
| However can you suggest what the correct Doctype string should be if not the
| current one?:
|
| <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
| "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
| <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
| <head>
| <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
Don't use XHTML - http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
That would solve some of the problems.

If you are using Firefox then download the HTML Validator by Marc
Gueury, Web Developer by Chris Pederick and Firebug by Joe Hewitt
plugins. These 3 plugins are invaluable, IMHO, to assist in the
development of any website.

The problems that needs fixing are:
line 30 column 1 - Warning: discarding unexpected <head>: you've got 2
head tags on the page
Don't use the <fonttag it's been deprecated.
Don't allow Dreamweaver to set the styling names otherwise all sorts
of weird and wonderful things can occur. For example:

..style1, .style13, .style2 {
color: #0054C7;
}
..style2 {
color: #000000;
color: #0054C7;
font-family: Tahoma;
font-size: 11px;
margin-top: 4px;
}
..style2 {
color: #000000;
}
..style2, .style45 {
color: #000000;
}
a {
color: #0000FF;
}
a {
color: #FFFFFF;
color: #0000FF;
}
a, .style19, a {
color: #FFFFFF;
}

td {
color: #000000 padding: 0;
}
td {
color: #000000 color:#000 padding: 0;
}

The following items have errors:
..fill {
text-alight: right; --should be align not alight
}
..style66 {
font-size: 1.51232e+034;
}
..style69 {
font-size: 1.51232e+034;
}
..style70 {
font-size: 1.51232e+034;
}
-- -------------------------------------------------------------
jn******@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
-- -------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 18 '07 #18

P: n/a
"Jeff North" <jn******@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
news:sj********************************@4ax.com...
The following items have errors:
.fill {
text-alight: right; --should be align not alight
Where on earth did you find that? Can't see it anywhere on the site and
have done a search operation too. :-S
Nov 19 '07 #19

P: n/a
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:52:54 GMT, in comp.lang.javascript "Mika"
<an**@anon.com>
<aW*******************@text.news.blueyonder.co.ukw rote:
>| "Jeff North" <jn******@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
| news:sj********************************@4ax.com...
|
| The following items have errors:
| .fill {
| text-alight: right; --should be align not alight
|
| Where on earth did you find that? Can't see it anywhere on the site and
| have done a search operation too. :-S
It's not one of yours:
http://imawow.weather.com/web/common...esheet/wow.css
-- -------------------------------------------------------------
jn******@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
-- -------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 19 '07 #20

P: n/a
"Mika" <an**@anon.comwrote in message
news:xE*******************@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
>
"Mika" <an**@anon.comwrote in message
news:p4*******************@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
>Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.

We have a page which has been working great for over a year and gets many
hits. However recently something got changed that we cannot seem to
find, and now *sometimes* if you refresh the page (generally while it is
still loading) in IE7, we get the popup window error:

Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
Operation aborted

Here is an example of the page in question:
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr [broadband recommended]

We appreciate you may have other comments on the site such as the size of
the pages, however we are not looking to change that at present, with
faster broadband becoming more abundant. Search engine listings alert
the user that broadband is recommended for this technology.

As we said, the site worked great, but for this unknown reason now needs
some sort of a tweak to fix. The changes we made before it happened were
related to the body tag but they have been completely undone yet the
issue remains :-S

Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

Regards,
Mika @ SHS.com

Well we just restored a backup of the site and noted that we had removed
the following apparently redundant CSS:

<style type="text/css">
.style1 {
text-align: left;
}
.style32 {
text-align: center;
}
.style38 {
text-align: center;
}
.style39 {
color: #000000;
}
</style>

Reinstating this seems to have fixed the IE bug! Can anyone get the
'Operation aborted' window to appear now by refreshing this page WHILST it
is still working?
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

There was a mention to some style code in one of the fixes for this known
IE bug. Anyway, it now appears to be resolved.

Thanks for all the tips. Hopefully MS will fix the bug before even more
programmers hate their browser, even if the majority of public don't.
Okay it turns out we jumped the gun as the problem is still happening,
albeit less often. It is completely random.

The only surefire workaround for this IE bug is to close the </bodytag
before the Google Maps code. BUT as stated that then messes up Firefox
interpreting the code.

Can anyone suggest another way to do this (which doesn't work)?:

<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->

Need something really simple please. KISS as you say.

Thanks.
Nov 19 '07 #21

P: n/a
Jeff North wrote:
>
Don't use XHTML - http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
That would solve some of the problems.
Personally, I prefer XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.x because it is much easier
to ensure it is error-free. But that's a personal choice.
Nov 19 '07 #22

P: n/a
On 19 Nov, 18:38, The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.co.ukwrote:
Personally, I prefer XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.x because it is much easier
to ensure it is error-free. But that's a personal choice.
What makes you think that?

@pigsinspace.co.uk
OMG! It's the uber-Mabbett!
Nov 19 '07 #23

P: n/a
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 19 Nov, 18:38, The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.co.ukwrote:
>Personally, I prefer XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.x because it is much easier
to ensure it is error-free. But that's a personal choice.

What makes you think that?

>@pigsinspace.co.uk

OMG! It's the uber-Mabbett!
Quite underwhelming unless you're using NN4 or MSIE...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 19 '07 #24

P: n/a
The Magpie said the following on 11/19/2007 1:38 PM:
Jeff North wrote:
>Don't use XHTML - http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
That would solve some of the problems.
Personally, I prefer XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.x because it is much easier
to ensure it is error-free. But that's a personal choice.
<sarcasm>
I agree. The support in IE (The most predominant browser on the web)
makes it so safe for the web.
<sarcasm>

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Nov 19 '07 #25

P: n/a
rf

"Mika" <an**@anon.comwrote in message
news:tF******************@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
I wonder if there is another way to say "only if you are IE, close the
body tag here"...
<!--[if IE]></body>><![endif]-->

--
Richard.
Nov 20 '07 #26

P: n/a
In article <Cp******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.comwrote:
"Mika" <an**@anon.comwrote in message
news:tF******************@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
I wonder if there is another way to say "only if you are IE, close the
body tag here"...

<!--[if IE]></body>><![endif]-->

<!--[if IE]><p style="font-size: 130%; font-weight: bold;">I had
to go to a lot of trouble for your browser, hope you appreciate
it!</p></body>><![endif]-->

--
dorayme
Nov 20 '07 #27

P: n/a
Andy Dingley wrote:
On 19 Nov, 18:38, The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.co.ukwrote:
>Personally, I prefer XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.x because it is much easier
to ensure it is error-free. But that's a personal choice.

What makes you think that?
I should have thought that was obvious.

HTML was designed from the start as a subset of SGML that would permit
lax coding of tags and allow addition of non-specified tags such as
the many that Microsoft chose to add to their own implementation back
to HTML 3.x and earlier. XHTML is - of course - simply XML.
Nov 20 '07 #28

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <tF******************@text.news.blueyond
er.co.uk>, Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:06:01, Mika <an**@anon.composted:
>
Out of interest why does body have a double-slash "\/" before it?
The pragmatical reason is, I expect, that with just "/" the code will be
deemed invalid by reputable validators such as Opera Ctrl-Alt-V and W3's
downloadable TIDY.

Since you asked, I suspect that you are not in the habit of doing such
validation.

<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/quotings.htm/THardy>

It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j and its FAQ. See below.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6
news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htmjscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Nov 20 '07 #29

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
[...] Mika <an**@anon.composted:
>Out of interest why does body have a double-slash "\/" before it?

The pragmatical reason is, I expect, that with just "/" the code will be
deemed invalid by reputable validators such as Opera Ctrl-Alt-V
That only invokes the W3C Validator (by default) and other UAs provide a
similar feature to do that (Firefox with the Web Developer extension), so
you should have named that instead:

http://validator.w3.org/
and W3's downloadable TIDY.
HTML Tidy is _not_ a validator, it is a markup cleaner that also provides
some degree of plausibility and even accessibility check. And it is no
longer maintained by the original author, Dave Raggett of the W3C;
development had moved on to the Open Source community at SourceForge before
2004-06 CE.
F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html

PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Nov 20 '07 #30

P: n/a
On 20 Nov, 12:51, The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.co.ukwrote:
Personally, I prefer XHTML 1.0 over HTML 4.x because it is much easier
to ensure it is error-free. But that's a personal choice.
What makes you think that?

I should have thought that was obvious.
Obviously not.

HTML was designed from the start as a subset of SGML that would permit
lax coding of tags
There's nothing "lax" about SGML's permitted optimisations. You're
allowed what you're allowed, no more. The fact that it's famously
difficult for humans (~Jukka) to understand the rules relating
optimised tags to elements doesn't mean they're "lax", just complex.

In fact, HTML is considerably _less_ "lax" than SGML might otherwise
have permitted.

If you said that it was harder to manually _author_ correct HTML than
correct XHTML, I'd have agreed with you. However to validate it as
being error-free, you do this to either of them by applying a pre-
existing freely available validator to them. For you as an author,
this is equally difficult for either.
and allow addition of non-specified tags
HTML doesn't permit this. The fact that many people _chose_ to, and
that some chose to do it in a manner (by specifying a new and extended
DTD) that was valid SGML (although thus no longer HTML at all) doesn't
make it right.
XHTML is - of course - simply XML.
Is it? All that can be said today with any real confidence about
"XHTML on the web" is that you can't do it with "XHTML as XML" because
IE refuses it.

Now if XHTML is XML, we're allowed XML namespacing and so we can
(directly contradicting your claim) safely add extra elements or
attributes. However in today's world of "XHTML as XHTML" we can't do
this with any more validity then simply dropping them into HTML as in
the past.

Nov 21 '07 #31

P: n/a
Hello Ian

Sorry you seem to unhappy.
I had to disable javascript just to get the page to load into Firefox.
This is very strange indeed. We must have tested this on dozens of Firefox
clients and never had a problem. The site has been live for 1.5 years and
not a single complaint from Firefox users, yet thousands of return Firefox
visitors. Could you try it again - perhaps you were referring to a broken
test page not the actual live pages? Try this page please:

http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr
My Advice....

3) Fix the HTML - Having three <head>, and three <bodytags is an
abortion! LINK can ONLY go in the header. Your page is such a mess it
can't be described as "tag soup". It a dogs breakfast! Fix.
This is a misnomer as it is actually the 2 SSI pages' own head and body that
you are seeing. It does not affect the operation at all, and if we remove
the tags from the 2 SSI pages then they cease to display correctly
elsewhere. It is not the cause of the issue, which as I have stated a
number of times, is a known and accepted bug between IE and Google Maps API.
6) If you want to show silly quotes or other dynamic content ...
We don't mind constructive criticism, but that is not constructive, it is
rude. I do not wish to get into a discussion about that however. The
quotes are not the cause of the issue this thread is about, again.
And consider using a version control system. That way when you back out a
change, you absolutely know it is 100% removed.
It would have saved all of this hassle.
We did restore the backup but the issue remained. We feel it may have been
there all along, just we never refreshed the page whilst it was loading and
hit one of the random times the bug would occur before.

Thanks for your time. If you could answer our query about your issue with
Firefox that would help, as it is worrying that yours is the first such
report on this entire thread and in 18 months of live use. Perhaps there is
something wrong with your system.

Mika
Nov 22 '07 #32

P: n/a
In alt.html, Mika wrote:
Hello Ian
Sorry you seem to unhappy.
>I had to disable javascript just to get the page to load into Firefox.

This is very strange indeed. We must have tested this on dozens of
Firefox clients and never had a problem. The site has been live for
1.5 years and not a single complaint from Firefox users, yet
Here's another.
thousands of return Firefox visitors. Could you try it again -
perhaps you were referring to a broken test page not the actual live
pages? Try this page please:

http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr
http://www.superhighstreet.com/Georg...nd/index.shtml

Firefox 2.0.0.9, JavaScript on:
"Please be patient while we teleport you there
(around 15 secs via fast broadband ...so a bit quicker than driving!)"

Still waiting, ten minutes later (on a 10Mbps connection), for whatever
that "progress bar" is supposed to represent.

Why does this page have an ugly purple background? (Think about that.)

What is that row of four unidentified icons for?

There is a huge empty blue area below the "progress bar."
>My Advice....

3) Fix the HTML - Having three <head>, and three <bodytags is an
abortion! LINK can ONLY go in the header. Your page is such a mess it
can't be described as "tag soup". It a dogs breakfast! Fix.
<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superhighstre et.com%2FGeorge-Street-Richmond%2Findex.shtml>
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
Result: Failed validation, 66 Errors

Why isn't this site Strict instead of Transitional?
This is a misnomer as it is actually the 2 SSI pages' own head and
body that you are seeing. It does not affect the operation at all,
and if we remove the tags from the 2 SSI pages then they cease to
display correctly elsewhere.
Then fix "elsewhere".
Thanks for your time. If you could answer our query about your issue with
Firefox that would help, as it is worrying that yours is the first such
report on this entire thread and in 18 months of live use. Perhaps there is
something wrong with your system.
There's nothing wrong with my "system(s)".

You've posted your site in the past, and as I recall, each time someone
told you of problems, not the least of which was load times.

Oh, and why did you interrupt my jazz CD with something that sounds like
waves on a beach? What's that got to do with George Street?

Same in Opera...

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 22 '07 #33

P: n/a
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:K%*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
In alt.html, Mika wrote:
>Hello Ian
Sorry you seem to unhappy.
>>I had to disable javascript just to get the page to load into Firefox.

This is very strange indeed. We must have tested this on dozens of
Firefox clients and never had a problem. The site has been live for
1.5 years and not a single complaint from Firefox users, yet

Here's another.
We will take this on board and look into it.

Thanks.


Nov 22 '07 #34

P: n/a

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:Qz********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Heh, googling for "george street online" (with quotes), the page isn't
listed at all, so I guess Google has whacked his peepee for it.
That phrase does not exist in our site so you are intentionally not finding
it by putting it in quotes.

Search just for george street richmond and it comes up no. 1.

Don't mind people pointing out genuine errors, but it is best not to make up
stories to suit your side.

I wonder if you guys were playground bullies the way you talk on here to
strangers. If you wouldn't say it in that tone to somebody's face, don't
online - that's the acid test.

You are all very impressed with yourselves and abilities to understand HTML
or j/s, but what we could teach you about interpersonal relationships!...

Over and out.

Mika
Nov 22 '07 #35

P: n/a
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:18:04
GMT Mika scribed:

You are all very impressed with yourselves and abilities to understand
HTML or j/s, but what we could teach you about interpersonal
relationships!...

Over and out.
Hey, these are the _nice_ guys! You should run into the hardcore cases
like Jukka and rf... Even ol' dorayme can spit some venom when rattled
agitatively. And Blinky The Shark - whoaaaaaa! There's a mouthful to
watch out for. You've been lucky, my man, so count your blessings.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Nov 23 '07 #36

P: n/a
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:K%*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>This is very strange indeed. We must have tested this on dozens of
Firefox clients and never had a problem. The site has been live for
1.5 years and not a single complaint from Firefox users, yet

Here's another.

Firefox 2.0.0.9, JavaScript on:
"Please be patient while we teleport you there
(around 15 secs via fast broadband ...so a bit quicker than driving!)"

Still waiting, ten minutes later (on a 10Mbps connection), for whatever
that "progress bar" is supposed to represent.
I wonder what the precise reason is that all the v2 Firefox browser machines
we can test on work perfectly, yet only in this group do they apparently
not. Do you have a standard installation, or any altered settings that may
cause it?

We also have 2.0.0.9 and the page loads in 2 seconds over a 4Mb/s line and
works perfectly every refresh.
Why does this page have an ugly purple background? (Think about that.)
Could you elaborate please? It is white.

Thanks.
Nov 23 '07 #37

P: n/a
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:K%*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Oh, and why did you interrupt my jazz CD with something that sounds like
waves on a beach? What's that got to do with George Street?
When it was featured on BBC Radio 1's top show, the presenter said, "they
simulate ... the experience of actual shopping ... complete with sound
effects".

I think you are intelligent enough to know it is a street noise and vehicles
whoosing past, but for some reason want to say it was a beach. That does
not really assist us.
Same in Opera...
Opera is not supported due to low user % and as they do not allow wide
enough page lengths to permit our scrolling supercell. This is stated in
the FAQ, which I'm sure you read ;)
Nov 23 '07 #38

P: n/a
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:e3**************************@NAXS.COM...
>
It's a "Spruce Goose", but we informed them that almost to years ago, but
whatever we say now won't matter they are too deeply committed without an
"exit strategy"
We are flattered you talk about this like it is a big business. It is just
a hobby done in spare time! We think we have done quite well considering
that being beginners, and that we have incurred little or no startup
expenses. The site is accessed by thousands of repeat visitors monthly.
>You've posted your site in the past, and as I recall, each time someone
told you of problems, not the least of which was load times.

Last time I check it was over 6MB...
6MB is not a load time. This site is clearly labelled as being for the
broadband generation. It says 'broadband recommended' on every page, and in
search engine listings, and the FAQ. 84% of the UK is now on broadband and
this is a UK oriented site. 6MB is about 2 seconds. Clearly that is not
really an issue to keep criticising the site for. As speeds increase this
will only become even less of an issue.

This thread was about a Google/MS issue, but we appreciate any
'constructive' polite comments.
your page is patchwork Frankenstein
Unlike that.
Nov 23 '07 #39

P: n/a
Mika wrote:
Hello Ian

Sorry you seem to unhappy.
>I had to disable javascript just to get the page to load into Firefox.

This is very strange indeed. We must have tested this on dozens of Firefox
clients and never had a problem. The site has been live for 1.5 years and
not a single complaint from Firefox users, yet thousands of return Firefox
visitors. Could you try it again - perhaps you were referring to a broken
test page not the actual live pages? Try this page please:

http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr
After an age I got a warning about an unresponsive script.

There is nothing wrong with my (broadband) setup.

Without wishing to be rude:

Your html is crap. You have been told this repeatedly.

Your javascript is unhelpful and visitor hostile.

Your approach is stubbornly wrong headed.

You have been given a lot of good advice over a long period.

Take it.

And Yes - I am pissed off with you. I spent time giving you a thoughtful
and considered response, because I thought I could help.

I can't help those who will not take advice.

Now re-read the advice you have been give by me and other, and follow
it, or go away.
Nov 23 '07 #40

P: n/a
"Ian Hobson" <ia********@ntlworld.comwrote in message
news:8K******************@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Now re-read the advice you have been give by me and other, and follow it,
or go away.
We have done some of the suggested work today. Please can you try again and
advise if the street now loads?:

http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

I can't think why you would get an unresponsive script error. Are you in
the UK? If so you are as close to our server as we are.
Nov 23 '07 #41

P: n/a
In alt.html, Mika wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>Same in Opera...

Opera is not supported due to low user % and as they do not allow
wide enough page lengths to permit our scrolling supercell.
What? Opera isn't wide enough? <snorkle! My Opera browser window is
as wide or as narrow as I choose to make it, up to the maximum
resolution of my monitors. In this group, we prefer to support "all
browsers."

Opera and Safari, by the way, are the only common browsers that pass the
Acid2 Test.
http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2
This is stated in the FAQ, which I'm sure you read ;)
No, I didn't. You presented a URL for comments. I looked at that one and
your main page.

Oh, and you said "meant for UK users", yet you have a San Francisco
street...

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 23 '07 #42

P: n/a
In alt.html, Mika wrote:
If you choose to set your browser background to "ugly purple" that is
your choice of course. Seems strange to complain to us though :P
The point is when you set colors, you also need to set background
colors. You cannot rely on all users to have the same browser defaults
as you.

Remember, the "Netscape" you claim to support used to have a default
background color of medium grey.

Run your css through the validator.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator.html

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 23 '07 #43

P: n/a
On Nov 23, 1:31 pm, "Mika" <a...@anon.comwrote:
"Ian Hobson" <ian.hob...@ntlworld.comwrote in message

news:8K******************@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Now re-read the advice you have been give by me and other, and follow it,
or go away.

We have done some of the suggested work today. Please can you try again and
advise if the street now loads?:

http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

I can't think why you would get an unresponsive script error. Are you in
the UK? If so you are as close to our server as we are.
Seemed okay on my test machine here today (FireFox 2 & IE7, Windows
XP). But I wonder about your site. You're using a lot of copyrighted
and trademarked content... have ALL those shops agreed to let you use
their "likeness"? I'm sure Nine West wont like having a picture of
their shop with scaffold outside it, for example. Be careful with
this...
Nov 23 '07 #44

P: n/a
On Nov 23, 1:45 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
In alt.html, Mika wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
Same in Opera...
Opera is not supported due to low user % and as they do not allow
wide enough page lengths to permit our scrolling supercell.

What? Opera isn't wide enough? <snorkle! My Opera browser window is
as wide or as narrow as I choose to make it, up to the maximum
resolution of my monitors. In this group, we prefer to support "all
browsers."

Opera and Safari, by the way, are the only common browsers that pass the
Acid2 Test.http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2
This is stated in the FAQ, which I'm sure you read ;)

No, I didn't. You presented a URL for comments. I looked at that one and
your main page.

Oh, and you said "meant for UK users", yet you have a San Francisco
street...

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
More likely he's using totally the wrong technology. If, for example,
you used AJAX to inject the shop images and links into a a DIV, while
dropping off the ones that have slid out of view... page width would
NEVER be an issue. It's a poorly thought out site I think.
Nov 23 '07 #45

P: n/a
On Nov 16, 6:12 pm, "Mika" <a...@anon.comwrote:
Hello, we understand you guys may be able to help.

We have a page which has been working great for over a year and gets many
hits. However recently something got changed that we cannot seem to find,
and now *sometimes* if you refresh the page (generally while it is still
loading) in IE7, we get the popup window error:

Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site...
Operation aborted

Here is an example of the page in question:http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr[broadband recommended]

We appreciate you may have other comments on the site such as the size of
the pages, however we are not looking to change that at present, with faster
broadband becoming more abundant. Search engine listings alert the user
that broadband is recommended for this technology.

As we said, the site worked great, but for this unknown reason now needs
some sort of a tweak to fix. The changes we made before it happened were
related to the body tag but they have been completely undone yet the issue
remains :-S

Thanks in advance to anyone able to find the cure for us to test.

Regards,
Mika @ SHS.com
I'd seriously consider re-engineering your site. You could could do
this FAR more efficiently using AJAX, and also remove most of the
browser issues you're seeing.It'll require much less of a heavy
workload on the browser, so you'll find it faster and smaller. Also
you wont be loading in images (shops) that aren't actually visible on
the screen until they scroll into view, so you'll probably save a
stack of traffic.

Again, alternative, do it in Flash.

I'd really go back to the drawingboard on this one - I don't think you
have a bad idea, but it's very poorly executed. Even if you fix the
issues you're having now, you'll just hit more down the line (or see
poor traffic due to errors that users will never bother to report -
they will just go elsewhere).
Nov 23 '07 #46

P: n/a
Mika wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:e3**************************@NAXS.COM...
>It's a "Spruce Goose", but we informed them that almost to years ago, but
whatever we say now won't matter they are too deeply committed without an
"exit strategy"

We are flattered you talk about this like it is a big business. It is just
a hobby done in spare time! We think we have done quite well considering
that being beginners, and that we have incurred little or no startup
expenses. The site is accessed by thousands of repeat visitors monthly.
Don't flatter yourself too much, I was referring to your mindset to your
project. The product of your industry is self-revealing.
>
>>You've posted your site in the past, and as I recall, each time someone
told you of problems, not the least of which was load times.
Last time I check it was over 6MB...

6MB is not a load time. This site is clearly labelled as being for the
broadband generation. It says 'broadband recommended' on every page, and in
search engine listings, and the FAQ. 84% of the UK is now on broadband and
this is a UK oriented site. 6MB is about 2 seconds. Clearly that is not
really an issue to keep criticising the site for. As speeds increase this
will only become even less of an issue.

This thread was about a Google/MS issue, but we appreciate any
'constructive' polite comments.
>your page is patchwork Frankenstein

Unlike that.
Denying real fundamental flaws in application and design does not make
those flaws go away.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 23 '07 #47

P: n/a
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:48***************************@NAXS.COM...
>This thread was about a Google/MS issue, but we appreciate any
'constructive' polite comments.
>>your page is patchwork Frankenstein

Unlike that.

Denying real fundamental flaws in application and design does not make
those flaws go away.
One day you might take on board the point that it is the *way* you give
advice that determines whether someone finds it helpful and therefore wishes
to take it, or finds you rude and so ignores you or reacts badly, thus
defeating the object of your advice.

The advice may be taken either way ultimately with a clear mind, but you
would not receive the thanks or kudos for providing it by insulting in the
process.

It just seems a strange way to act, but that is your prerogative.

Mika
Nov 23 '07 #48

P: n/a
SpaceGirl wrote:
More likely he's using totally the wrong technology. If, for example,
you used AJAX to inject the shop images and links into a a DIV, while
dropping off the ones that have slid out of view... page width would
NEVER be an issue. It's a poorly thought out site I think.
Been told that more than a year ago. Also your proficient in flash, a
similar progressive loading of sections could be done in flash, right?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 23 '07 #49

P: n/a
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:K%*******************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
In alt.html, Mika wrote:

Firefox 2.0.0.9, JavaScript on:
"Please be patient while we teleport you there
(around 15 secs via fast broadband ...so a bit quicker than driving!)"

Still waiting, ten minutes later (on a 10Mbps connection), for whatever
that "progress bar" is supposed to represent.
Was it literally 10 minutes? Would you be kind enough to test again for us
please, now we are W3C certified.
Here is the link to our site: http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

Since yours and the 1 other message reporting an issue that the others did
not have, we have tested on 6 other random machines, running XP or Vista and
various flavours of Firefox with JS *on*. Without exception *all* load the
page in 2-8 seconds via Broadband 2Mb/s and no problems whatsoever. This
follows the experience of users of the site, and 1.5 years past testing on
Firefox.
What is that row of four unidentified icons for?
Google Adwords not showing is a symptom of having JS disabled. To save us
hours more work in case it was off, please check again that JS is on when
you test.
There is a huge empty blue area below the "progress bar."
That is where the JS streetscape and map go, hence JS sounds disabled.
There is a clear <noscriptmessage to say to enable it, and it is also
listed in the FAQ as being required.
>>My Advice....

3) Fix the HTML - Having three <head>, and three <bodytags is an
abortion! LINK can ONLY go in the header. Your page is such a mess it
can't be described as "tag soup". It a dogs breakfast! Fix.
Done. Now W3C validated. Feels better.
Why isn't this site Strict instead of Transitional?
We tried this but it caused us many problems with different margin
formatting in different browsers. Transitional works, so makes sense to
use.
There's nothing wrong with my "system(s)".
Please check JS is on.

If not, are you running ad blocking software? If so we assume it is easy to
temporarily not enable it, and try the link again? Thanks.
You've posted your site in the past, and as I recall, each time someone
told you of problems, not the least of which was load times.
It is very hard to fix an issue which we cannot recreate on any broadband PC
in Europe and which nobody has reported. Hopefully you are able to help us
as you have reported it. Thanks for your assistance.

Mika
Nov 24 '07 #50

64 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.