IE cannot open the Internet site ... Operation aborted

[Mika]

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

[Mika]

"Ian Hobson" <ia********@ntlworld.comwrote in message
news:My***************@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

Mika wrote:

>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

I had to disable javascript just to get the page to load into Firefox.

Ian can you please kindly check again now it is W3C certified CSS:
http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

JS must be *on* for it to load.

Thank you.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

In alt.html, VK wrote:

>{Beau wrote:] [please don't snip attributes, thanks.]

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

[Mika wrote:]

>Was it literally 10 minutes? Would you be kind enough to test again
for us please, now we are W3C certified [1]. Here is the link to our
site: http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

The respondent has JavaScript disabled, so he's trying to tell you in
a indirect way that your site is missing a "Go to hell, looser [sic]"
message which is indeed suggested for any script-driven solution.

No, at the time, JavaScript was enabled. And it was ten minutes when I
posted that, but the progress bar never stopped 'progressing' for much
longer until I finally killed the page, probably over twenty minutes. I
think it was more likely a server issue at that time, simply not
delivering whatever content was supposed to be sent. I've noticed this
several times looking at his page.

As I alluded in some other post, it could have been that 'big pond'
betwixt the server and me.

[1] Still has errors which Mika doesn't care about.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Mika]

"VK" <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:90**********************************@i29g2000 prf.googlegroups.com...

The respondent has JavaScript disabled, so he's trying to tell you in
a indirect way that your site is missing a "Go to hell, looser"
message which is indeed suggested for any script-driven solution. At
the very bottom of your page (so to not be occasionally used by robots
in the index description) put something like:

Yes we thought he did too. We already had that warning on the page in
<noscripttags and it displays correctly on FF.

Thanks.

[Mika]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:XZ********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

In alt.html, VK wrote:

>>{Beau wrote:] [please don't snip attributes, thanks.]
Still waiting, ten minutes later (on a 10Mbps connection), for
whatever that "progress bar" is supposed to represent.

[Mika wrote:]

>>Was it literally 10 minutes? Would you be kind enough to test again
for us please, now we are W3C certified [1]. Here is the link to our
site: http://tinyurl.com/35mwxr

The respondent has JavaScript disabled, so he's trying to tell you in
a indirect way that your site is missing a "Go to hell, looser [sic]"
message which is indeed suggested for any script-driven solution.

No, at the time, JavaScript was enabled. And it was ten minutes when I
posted that, but the progress bar never stopped 'progressing' for much
longer until I finally killed the page, probably over twenty minutes. I
think it was more likely a server issue at that time, simply not
delivering whatever content was supposed to be sent. I've noticed this
several times looking at his page.

As I alluded in some other post, it could have been that 'big pond'
betwixt the server and me.

This is all very strange. You are the only confirmed visitor *with* JS
apparently enabled, who seems to have their JS blocked for AdWords and
Google Maps. Those are the elements you claim did not appear with JS
enabled, while you tested our site for 20 minutes.

Now you are saying that the fact our servers are in the UK somehow disabled
JS. :-S We use the UK's most reliable company, LiquidSix, who have a

>99.9% uptime.

We still think you had JS off. Please try it now with JS on and our new
validated code.

[1] Still has errors which Mika doesn't care about.

Strange people here. We have spent 2 days refining the code to be as W3C
friendly as possible. Why give us feedback, which we act on, if you are
then going to make bizarre comments like that? If you have nothing nice to
say, don't feel the need to respond.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

In alt.html, Mika wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

>No, at the time, JavaScript was enabled. And it was ten minutes when
I posted that, but the progress bar never stopped 'progressing' for
much longer until I finally killed the page, probably over twenty
minutes. I think it was more likely a server issue at that time,
simply not delivering whatever content was supposed to be sent. I've
noticed this several times looking at his page.

As I alluded in some other post, it could have been that 'big pond'
betwixt the server and me.

This is all very strange. You are the only confirmed visitor *with* JS
apparently enabled, who seems to have their JS blocked for AdWords

The Google Adwords/Adsense servers are in our HOSTS file. We never see
them, on any site. This is somewhat common. Google for "HOSTS file"

and Google Maps.

We use Google Maps all the time, and they are not blocked. We see your
map and never said we didn't.

Those are the elements you claim did not appear with JS
enabled, while you tested our site for 20 minutes.

Once again, the page was trying to load something (hourglass and your
progress bar) and it never finished.

Now you are saying that the fact our servers are in the UK somehow disabled
JS. :-S

We never said that. Stop making stuff up.

We use the UK's most reliable company, LiquidSix, who have a
99.9% uptime.

Well then we think it must have been that 0.01% ...

We still think you had JS off. Please try it now with JS on and our new
validated code.

We did not have JavaScript off. Get to realize that, chums.

>[1] Still has errors which Mika doesn't care about.

Strange people here. We have spent 2 days refining the code to be as
W3C friendly as possible. Why give us feedback, which we act on, if
you are then going to make bizarre comments like that?

Bizarre? You yourself said (the "we" you refer to yourself as) that you
didn't care to fix the errors.

<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, 12 Errors

Why do you have target="_blank" on an <iframe?

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=http%3A%2F%2F www.superhighstreet.com%2FGeorge-Street-Richmond%2Findex.shtml>
No errors now, but 146 warnings.

and you still haven't assigned a background color to: body { }
That should take you about ten seconds to fix.

If you have nothing nice to say, don't feel the need to respond.

"Your site is simply gorgeous, best site we've seen on the Web in years,
loads quicker'n a greased goose, and we'll shop there every day!!!1!!"

(Notice our use of "we" everywhere in our post. <gSilly, ain't it?)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[VK]

On Nov 24, 10:37 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"

The Google Adwords/Adsense servers are in our HOSTS file.
We never see
them, on any site.This is somewhat common. Google for "HOSTS file"

We use Google Maps all the time, and they are not blocked. We see your map and never said we didn't.

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and
may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be
targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries
made through the Services or other information.

17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the
Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.

17.3 In consideration for Google granting you access to and use of
the Services, you agree that Google may place such advertising on the
Services.

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:37:15
GMT Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

"Your site is simply gorgeous, best site we've seen on the Web in
years, loads quicker'n a greased goose, and we'll shop there every
day!!!1!!"

(Notice our use of "we" everywhere in our post. <gSilly, ain't it?)

Gosh, I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into one of those typical
epithet-tossing contests between a bunch of we wes.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

In alt.html, VK wrote:

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

<snip>

You replied to the wrong person.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Randy Webb]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said the following on 11/24/2007 5:16 PM:

In alt.html, VK wrote:

>http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

<snip>

You replied to the wrong person.

No he didn't.

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

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

In alt.html, Randy Webb wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:

>In alt.html, VK wrote:

>>http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

<snip>

You replied to the wrong person.

No he didn't.

Yes, he did. It's not my site, it's Mika's.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Randy Webb]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said the following on 11/24/2007 6:47 PM:

In alt.html, Randy Webb wrote:

>Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:

>>In alt.html, VK wrote:
http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS
<snip>

You replied to the wrong person.

No he didn't.

Yes, he did. It's not my site, it's Mika's.

<sighThe reply was in direct relation to the reference to Google'ing
for HOSTS Files, which tells how to defeat Google ads. He replied to the
right post, he just didn't know what he was talking about.

VK's belief was that the idea was to attempt to suppress Google ads on a
google ad page by the author of that page. That isn't what HOSTS Files
are about.

Can this thread be dropped from c.l.j though? It is getting rather
boresome and off-topic here.

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

[John W. Kennedy]

The Magpie wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

>On 19 Nov, 18:38, The Magpie <[e-mail]:

>>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

Clarification: SGML (and GML before it) always allowed lax coding.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The pathetic hope that the White House will turn a Caligula into a
Marcus Aurelius is as naïve as the fear that ultimate power inevitably
corrupts."
-- James D. Barber (1930-2004)

[SpaceGirl]

On Nov 23, 3:28 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

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?

I'd probably be more tempted to do it in Flash, yes. The site is quite
a neat idea, and Flash would really lend itself to something that
visual. It would be heck of a lot easier to build, and as you say,
progressive loading would be a walk in the park.

[Jonathan N. Little]

SpaceGirl wrote:

On Nov 23, 3:28 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>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?

I'd probably be more tempted to do it in Flash, yes. The site is quite
a neat idea, and Flash would really lend itself to something that
visual. It would be heck of a lot easier to build, and as you say,
progressive loading would be a walk in the park.

Don't worry though the OP would never consider such a rational idea. It
does not 'fit' within his preconceived deployment, flawed as it may be!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Good Man]

"Mika" <an**@anon.comwrote in
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

Thanks for causing my Firefox to crash.