Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Does this page work in your Firefox?

Reply
Thread Tools

Does this page work in your Firefox?

 
 
Mika
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2007
"Bergamot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mika wrote:
>> "Mika" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:UN93j.54364$(E-Mail Removed) .uk...
>>> "Bergamot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>
>>>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false.
>>>
>>> We said, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS".
>>>
>>> All 3 full Streetscapes are
>>> UK streets. The other 'Street-lites' are link to brands you'd find
>>> around
>>> the world, and they all still link to *UK* shop websites.

>
> So what? I don't get the point of even mentioning cities outside the UK
> if you only *want* to deal with both UK shops and UK customers.


Perhaps with 5 more seconds thought you might have 'got it'. Brand names
are universal. Our UK visitors however like the idea of shopping in other
famous streets outside the UK.

So, they could go to Fifth Avenue, click on Tiffany & Co., and be taken
inside the Tiffany *UK* website. Tiffany will then deliver their goods to
them in the UK. They can literally have breakfast at the world famous 5th
Avenue Tiffany's, in their dressing gown. Breakfast at Tiffany's.

We haven't finished the 5th Ave. streetscape yet, but it is coming.

>>> We are a small startup. We have chosen
>>> to start in the UK. It could have been USA or Australia if we lived
>>> there, but we are in the UK.

>
> Now your disregard for how the site performs outside the UK makes even
> less sense. Good luck with that international thing.


Sorry that makes no sense. We are testing the site to a UK audience. Thus
how it works in Pakistan is not important. When we launch our portal in
Pakistan, then it will. That is quite logical and how every single web
company in the world started. You wanted us to launch globally from day
one? Fine, if you give us the money to enable it! Think things through
before posting.

>> That's interesting... no reply from you.

>
> Not interesting at all. I do have another life away from Usenet, and
> I'll be returning to it now.


Yet you replied to others just not our message where you were proven wrong.
Oops.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mika
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2007

"Blinky the Shark" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> Bergamot wrote:
>> Mika wrote:
>>> "Mika" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:UN93j.54364$(E-Mail Removed) .uk...
>>>> "Bergamot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>
>>>>> Your statements insisting it's strictly UK is obviously false.
>>>>
>>>> We said, "The online sites we link to are UK SHOPS".
>>>>
>>>> All 3 full Streetscapes are
>>>> UK streets. The other 'Street-lites' are link to brands you'd find
>>>> around
>>>> the world, and they all still link to *UK* shop websites.

>>
>> So what? I don't get the point of even mentioning cities outside the UK
>> if you only *want* to deal with both UK shops and UK customers.

>
> Mostly what he wants is pats on the back.


Says Blinky conveniently forgetting that we have received many criticisms
here and acted on every single one that we possibly could, thus changing
many things. How does that mean we just want praise? Again people here
talking nonsense and making up fairy tales. Good luck with that. What a
waste of time!

Mika


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2007
In article <eTx3j.54885$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
"Mika" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > In article <kzu3j.54796$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
> > "Mika" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> > There is one thing I would not mind raising with you. What is
> > your actual evidence that in the UK itself (you are welcome to
> > confine it to Londoners if you like) your site is something that
> > people would be pleased with, use and shop, come back to and so
> > on. What is the control on these claims? Ever done any science?
> >

.....
> >
> > If you are having commercial success with your site, good luck to
> > you. But there is more to consider than the micro details.

>
> yes the
> site makes money in the UK, and we get 5-figure hits per month, many from
> repeat visitors.
>


If you are making significant money, why are you bothering with
the criticisms here that are way off all proper understanding in
your estimation? Frankly, I would not mind seeing an objective
analysis of what your UK visitors actually do and think? What
really constitutes repeat visitors (I am a repeat visitor). The U
tube demo is publicity, it does not show the average UK visitor
experience, I could make that here.

Please now publish a full account of your costs and takings, in
detail (*we* can do the dividing by 3). And prepare for a
representative committee from alt.html visiting to look into your
books and commission focus groups and surveys among the UK
residents.

You will be expected to put the committee up in comfortable
circumstances. By the way, in case I am lucky enough to get on to
it, I don't like Earl Grey (too scenty for me), but I do like
Brit winters, arrange some snow, I like snow.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2007
dorayme wrote:

> but I do like
> Brit winters, arrange some snow, I like snow.


http://www.hydeparkwinterwonderland.com/

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Els <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > but I do like
> > Brit winters, arrange some snow, I like snow.

>
> http://www.hydeparkwinterwonderland.com/


<g>

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bone Ur
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2007
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:11:45
GMT Mika scribed:

>> That's open to interpretation, but my beef with you is that you're
>> using non-standard markup (ie: incorrect) in your page, calling it
>> correct, and defending your position by stating that is has to be
>> that way to work.

>
> It is largely and I mean 99.9% correct. The bits that are not, it is
> true, are not able to be changed - otherwise believe me we would have.
> We have done a lot that the nicer folks here have suggested - a LOT.
>
> The site is W3C CSS compliant, but even the single digits objects that
> give doctype validation issues are completely irrelevant to anyone who
> doesn't know or care what a doctype is. It is wrong to assume that
> the Great British shopping public would first run a test to see if the
> site has any inconsistencies in its code! The errors work.
>
> Simply, they load it up, it appears in about 5 seconds, and they go
> shopping.
>
> The major differences of opinion here are through some here's
> inability to understand that:
>
> A) They live in the USA. All our shops deliver to the UK. Hence
> commenting on this UK site being slow across international server hops
> is about as relevant as saying Google China is displayed in the wrong
> language for Americans.
>
> B) You are all conditioned to look at the 'code' of a site. The huge
> majority of surfers however only look at the 'end result' of a site as
> it displays. To try to remember that just because your world is 100%
> everything to you, it is nothing to others. The markup you refer to
> as invalid, still works 100% intact in any browser! You and a
> validation site reporting an "error" does not mean it is broken! The
> elements that are in 'error' work perfectly. If only you and I know
> that a validation site thinks it is not right, who on earth does that
> affect the browsing experience of? I have never understood that.
> These errors all function 100% perfectly! What harp on about them
> then? Is that important to you, that they work well, but some website
> says they are wrong? Who cares? I shouldn't be cause they cause no
> issue whatsoever at all zilch nada.


Regarding this markup which you proclaim works, have you checked it
against every possibly condition under which it should work as it
supposedly does?

Whatever, I am tired of arguing about this and I'm sure you are, too. I
will concede that pages can sometimes function in general with certain
invalid markup - you see it all the times on The Web. However, that
doesn't give an author who knows better any excuse to create such a page,
and a valid solution should be found rather than relying on empirical
conditions.

>> a change _must_
>> be made in order to have a viable website. Anything less is a hack
>> and one
>> fundamental reason why so many sites today just functionally suck.
>> If you want a valid, well-operating page then you have to make it the
>> same way, not rely on dubious shortcuts. Since you seem to be in
>> self-denial over that concept, my remark was quite valid and
>> accurate.

>
> As said over and over again, and prolly for the last time now, this is
> the UK portal. When/if we get that far in the UK, and launch a USA
> portal, rest assured it will be hosted on USA servers and thus load in
> 5 seconds for you too. Please try to grasp this fact as it is so
> tiresome and is what I have said from the start. This is a *UK*
> website.
>
> Long live the Queen!


Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a
King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your
majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie
could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that
still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mika
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2007
"Bone Ur" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns99F794483B759boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...
>
> Regarding this markup which you proclaim works, have you checked it
> against every possibly condition under which it should work as it
> supposedly does?


Yes.

> Whatever, I am tired of arguing about this and I'm sure you are, too. I
> will concede that pages can sometimes function in general with certain


No, they all function perfectly in all supported browsers now.

> invalid markup - you see it all the times on The Web. However, that
> doesn't give an author who knows better any excuse to create such a page,
> and a valid solution should be found rather than relying on empirical
> conditions.


Why? That is just unnecessary work and expense to fix something that isn't
broken. If it works, don't mend it.

>> Long live the Queen!

>
> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a
> King.


I don't think you've actually agreed with a single point I've ever raised
here. If I said black was white, you'd probably try to explain that it is
grey.

Shall we leave it alone now lol?!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Blinky the Shark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2007
Bone Ur wrote:

> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a
> King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your
> majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie
> could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that
> still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.


http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Celebriti..._elizabeth.jpg


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
Norman Peelman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Mika wrote:
> "Norman Peelman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:474eb5ac$0$2557$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Ok, where does George St. end? In Opera 9,21 (Linux) I am able to walk
>> (run) from the intersection of George St. and Red Lion St. all the way to
>> the 3 way intersection of George St., The Square, and The Quadrant.
>>
>> Norm

>
> That is correct. George Street works perfectly in Opera, as does Portobello
> Road as we have said. Oxford Street however does not work correctly in
> Opera, that is you can only scroll up to House of Fraser. In any other
> browser you can scroll continuously more than twice as far.
>
>


Can confirm that, Opera 9.21 (Linux for me) has a ceiling of 32765px
for the width of a DIV, after which it does not display. The limit does
not exist for the height attribute. Even tried setting it with javascript.

Norm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Mullen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Bone Ur wrote:
>
>> Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a
>> King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your
>> majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie
>> could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that
>> still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.

>
> http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Celebriti..._elizabeth.jpg


I am SO glad that wasn't a pic of the queen running around the palace
without her bloomers on!


--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Team Members needed for an Open source project (Work from your location/Work Online) umeshawasthi General Computer Support 0 12-13-2010 05:05 PM
Does this page work in your Firefox? Mika Javascript 5 11-28-2007 10:55 AM
If your Tv has progresive Scan does your DVD have to have it to work ? Alyssa DVD Video 5 01-06-2006 11:10 PM
ZoneAlarm has detected a problem with your installation, and therefore has restricted Internet access from your machine for your protection. Donít panic A Teuchter Computer Support 2 05-19-2005 09:20 PM
When I open Internet Explorer, along with my home page a pop page pops up, I have changed home page but that doesnt work Phil Computer Support 7 03-04-2004 12:22 AM



Advertisments