Hi all

Bit of a long shot this one.

I originally setup a blog on www.squarespace.com but as I have not 
updated it in some years thought I would download it locally to my pc 
before uploading it as a static display to my own bit of webspace (works 
out at about £30 pa rather than £145 pa.)

Locally the site opens fine in both IE and Firefox (3.07) but having 
uploaded it to my website something has broken and it does not display 
normally using Firefox (IE is still okay)

Does any one have any suggestions.

Site is here www.wobbleyworld.com

Cheers

Alan

In article ,
 Alan  wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> Bit of a long shot this one.
> 
> I originally setup a blog on www.squarespace.com but as I have not 
> updated it in some years thought I would download it locally to my pc 
> before uploading it as a static display to my own bit of webspace (works 
> out at about £30 pa rather than £145 pa.)
> 
> Locally the site opens fine in both IE and Firefox (3.07) but having 
> uploaded it to my website something has broken and it does not display 
> normally using Firefox (IE is still okay)
> 
> Does any one have any suggestions.
> 
> Site is here www.wobbleyworld.com

FF is having difficulty finding the styles. It can be kicked into fairly 
suddenly finding them, curiously enough, by using the web developer add 
on and calling for Edit CSS.

There are quite some things wrong with CSS and the W3C validator reports 
unhappiness with character encoding and a few other things but perhaps 
these are incidental.

-- 
dorayme

At 09:18:17 on Wed, 11 Mar 2009, dorayme 
 wrote in 
:

>FF is having difficulty finding the styles.

Because they're in a file called display/dynamic1.html.  Renaming the 
file to display/dynamic1.css should make a noticeable difference...
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:24:30 +0000, Alan  wrote in
:

>Locally the site opens fine in both IE and Firefox (3.07) but having 
>uploaded it to my website something has broken and it does not display 
>normally using Firefox (IE is still okay)
>
>Does any one have any suggestions.

My guess would be that the web host is serving display/dynamic1.html as
text/html where you need it to be text/css. Renaming the file as
dynamic1.css (and fixing the reference of course) may improve things.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

In article ,
 Owen Rees  wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:24:30 +0000, Alan  wrote in
> :
> 
> >Locally the site opens fine in both IE and Firefox (3.07) but having 
> >uploaded it to my website something has broken and it does not display 
> >normally using Firefox (IE is still okay)
> >
> >Does any one have any suggestions.
> 
> My guess would be that the web host is serving display/dynamic1.html as
> text/html where you need it to be text/css. Renaming the file as
> dynamic1.css (and fixing the reference of course) may improve things.

FF is odd man out in my stable, perhaps it has less error correction or 
tolerance?

-- 
dorayme

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:46:06 +1100, dorayme
 wrote in
:

>FF is odd man out in my stable, perhaps it has less error correction or 
>tolerance?

See https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Incorrect_MIME_Type_for_CSS_Files

CSS is not HTML so it is just plain wrong to serve it with content type
text/html. Browsers silently applying unspecified fixups when presented
with incorrect content is one of the reasons why so much of the web is
such a mess.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

Owen Rees wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:46:06 +1100, dorayme
>  wrote in
> :
> 
>> FF is odd man out in my stable, perhaps it has less error correction or 
>> tolerance?
> 
> See https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Incorrect_MIME_Type_for_CSS_Files
> 
> CSS is not HTML so it is just plain wrong to serve it with content type
> text/html. Browsers silently applying unspecified fixups when presented
> with incorrect content is one of the reasons why so much of the web is
> such a mess.
> 
Thanks for the suggestions folks - the only thing that is really 
puzzling me is that the site displays okay locally using Firefox, its 
just when I upload it to my ISP that it does not.

Could it be that they have some form of different web server running 
(not sure what I might use locally!)

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:05:02 +0000, Alan put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>Owen Rees wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:46:06 +1100, dorayme
>>  wrote in
>> :
>> 
>>> FF is odd man out in my stable, perhaps it has less error correction or 
>>> tolerance?
>> 
>> See https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Incorrect_MIME_Type_for_CSS_Files
>> 
>> CSS is not HTML so it is just plain wrong to serve it with content type
>> text/html. Browsers silently applying unspecified fixups when presented
>> with incorrect content is one of the reasons why so much of the web is
>> such a mess.
>> 
>Thanks for the suggestions folks - the only thing that is really 
>puzzling me is that the site displays okay locally using Firefox, its 
>just when I upload it to my ISP that it does not.
>
>Could it be that they have some form of different web server running 
>(not sure what I might use locally!)

Unless you've actually got a web server running on your PC (which is
unlikely, and you'd know if you had), then locally any browser is just
taking the files from the filesystem. So they aren't being served with
any kind of content-type at all - the browser is acting as a
filesystem browser rather than a web browser, and will just make the
best of what it's given by looking at the content. On a web server,
though, it will be given a content-type by the server and that will
override the brower's own internal fallback.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:40:57 +0000,
real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:


>But they can still distinguish between information and presentation, or
>should be able to. 
Au contraire.  

Since all information must be presented to be available to cognition*,
one CANNOT distinguish  information from presentation.  What one CAN
do is to _differentiate between presentations_ and have a response to
and/or opinion and/or preference  about the contribution (+ve/-ve) the
presentation makes to the ease of assimilating the information.

*Information can EXIST without presentation, but - as dorayme rightly
observes - it is not available to humans (or indeed more generally to
cognition of any sentient creature) except when presented in a manner
that the recipient can utilise.  

As an example: describe the colour "red".  You cannot present
information about red (oh - wavelength of red light, the colour of
blood, whatever) to me in a manner I can comprehend without  visually
presenting me with "redness".  In this case, the only way I can
comprehend the information about 'red' is to have it presented
visually.  Whereas, I can understand other classes of information in
other ways - the information about a "middle C" (frequency of
vibration) must be presented aurally. 

In the case of "red" and "middle C" we even have two  things which can
be defined using the same units of measurement (albeit of different
things) - wavelength or frequency - but which must be presented**
differently to be comprehensible.  

**Or at least must be referenced to something already presented in a
manner that can be comprehended:  "middle C is between X and Y".  No,
I have NO idea what notes X and Y are! A & E?. (Aren't the mnemonics
something like: FACE? EGBDF?)

>The very fact that humans "get info via presentations" entails that
>presentation is not information.

The two are inseparable in the real world. By which I mean the world
we experience.  We might not experience the same "reality" in the same
way, either.

Message-ID:  from
spam.goes.here2@ntlworld.com contained the following:

>**Or at least must be referenced to something already presented in a
>manner that can be comprehended:  "middle C is between X and Y".  No,
>I have NO idea what notes X and Y are! A & E?. (Aren't the mnemonics
>something like: FACE? EGBDF?)

Middle C is between B and C#

:-)
-- 
Regards,
Geoff Berrow
http://www.slipperyhill.co.uk - Blue grass, blues, barn dance
http://4theweb.co.uk - Web design, development and hosting

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:45:14 +0000,
real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:40:57 +0000,
>> real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> >But they can still distinguish between information and presentation, or
>> >should be able to. 
>> Au contraire.  
>> 
>> Since all information must be presented to be available to cognition*,
>> one CANNOT distinguish  information from presentation.  What one CAN
>> do is to _differentiate between presentations_ and have a response to
>> and/or opinion and/or preference  about the contribution (+ve/-ve) the
>> presentation makes to the ease of assimilating the information.
>
>Of course one can distinguish.
>
>The information is: "The building is on fire. You must leave
>immediately."
>
>The presentation is: shouting, urgent voices.

You've come much further up the up the hierarchy from where I was
inhabiting to make your point.  You pot may be valid at the level  you
choose, I have no idea. (I am not working with our analogy at your
level, but with mine at mine). 

At my level, your analogy reduces to something like:  The information
is "vibration in air". The presentation depends on the presence of a
mechanism to decode the wave pattern in the air. AKA "ears" (although
there are other sensory organs in other life-forms that would not
typically be called "ears".  "Feet" for example.

Only after that can one decide (from experience) that the presentation
is "shouting".  To some people,  normal conversational Arabic
(depending on dialect) sounds very aggressive.  Only then, if one is
familiar with the language in which the "shouting"  occurs, can one
determine that the message being conveyed is "Fire".  As opposed to
"Shoot!". The presence of fire or flame might assist: but then that
information is presented via means of the "eye". 



>The mere fact that one can have different presentation of the same
>information means that they must be distinguishable. If they weren't,
>then affecting the mode of presentation would affect the semantic
>content.


That's what I said.  Presentations  are distinguishable one from
another. They may obscure or appear to change the information, meaning
that one interprets or perceives the information differently, taking
it to be different, even if it is the same.

> 
>The point is that HTML offers mechanisms for the informative structuring
>and labelling of content, and if we are going to use it to its best
>effect, then we should exploit those mechanisms to the fullest extent
>possible, and not allow questions of "how it looks" to affect how we use
>it.

I wouldn't disagree with the fundamental thrust of that - especially
as my knowledge of HTML is less developed than my understanding of how
animals hear with their feet :)  -  except to say that how things look
DOES need to be taken into account in how we use things.    Not a lot
of point having a red button for "boom!" and a green button for "no
boom!" if the operator of the buttons  is colour blind.

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:12:48 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>>**Or at least must be referenced to something already presented in a
>>manner that can be comprehended:  "middle C is between X and Y".  No,
>>I have NO idea what notes X and Y are! A & E?. (Aren't the mnemonics
>>something like: FACE? EGBDF?)
>
>Middle C is between B and C#
>
>:-)

So much for my primary school music education then. :( 

Wouldn't it more accurately be described as being between Cb and C#,
tho?  I've probably just reinforced my display of ignorance.  Oh well:
that's all a matter of presentation, not information anyway.

Message-ID:  from
spam.goes.here2@ntlworld.com contained the following:

>>Middle C is between B and C#
>>
>>:-)
>
>So much for my primary school music education then. :( 
>
>Wouldn't it more accurately be described as being between Cb and C#,
>tho?  I've probably just reinforced my display of ignorance. 

I couldn't possibly comment...
There is only a semitone between B and C and so there is no Cb.   

>Oh well:
>that's all a matter of presentation, not information anyway. 

I suppose so. You can play in B# if you want to.  I'll play in C.
-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
http://slipperyhill.co.uk - http://4theweb.co.uk

Message-ID:  from
spam.goes.here2@ntlworld.com contained the following:

>>The point is that HTML offers mechanisms for the informative structuring
>>and labelling of content, and if we are going to use it to its best
>>effect, then we should exploit those mechanisms to the fullest extent
>>possible, and not allow questions of "how it looks" to affect how we use
>>it.
>
>I wouldn't disagree with the fundamental thrust of that - especially
>as my knowledge of HTML is less developed than my understanding of how
>animals hear with their feet :)  -  except to say that how things look
>DOES need to be taken into account in how we use things.    Not a lot
>of point having a red button for "boom!" and a green button for "no
>boom!" if the operator of the buttons  is colour blind. 

I think you are getting confused.  Content marked up in HTML is has
nothing to do with how it looks.  The /look/ of HTML marked up content
is entirely due to the default styles imposed upon that markup by the
browser.  Without those, the HTML would make no difference to the look
of the content whatsoever, it would still just be plain text.

In theory, content should be marked up semantically, in other words
headings should have heading tags, paragraphs have paragraph tags and
lists are marked up as lists.  And yes, tabular data should be marked up
as tables. 

If this is done correctly the /look/ of a document is then infinitely
variable using style sheets.

-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
http://slipperyhill.co.uk - http://4theweb.co.uk

spam.goes.here2@ntlworld.com wrote:

> **Or at least must be referenced to something already presented in a
> manner that can be comprehended:  "middle C is between X and Y".  No,
> I have NO idea what notes X and Y are! A & E?. (Aren't the mnemonics
> something like: FACE? EGBDF?)

Treble Clef = EGBDF = Every Good Boy Does Fine
Bass Clef = GBDFA = Good Boys Do Fine Always

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Why are cigarettes sold in gas stations when you can't smoke there?

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:57:25 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>Message-ID:  from
>spam.goes.here2@ntlworld.com contained the following:
>

>I think you are getting confused. 
That is entirely possible.  I shall have to check back and see if I
am.