Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'?

For bandwidth considerations and to avoid dancing-cartoons-in-ya-face
I mostly use `lynx` instead of a 'proper' browser.
And normally I can even do blog-comments with `lynx`.

But this one has got me confused:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f.../8917915/It-is
-now-becoming-clear-Germany-has-had-enough-of-this-euro-
mess.html#disqus_thread

My understanding from some blog where this works, was that
<URL>:comment
positions lynx's cursor at <comment> on the downloaded page of
<URL>, on my screen.

Importantly, original article and all the current comments are
'on' [and hence downloaded] the <URL> 'page'.

With this other/newer/fancy method, lynx fails to get the
list of comments via <URL>.

How does it get to the comment-list via: <URL>#disqus_thread ?

What's the RFC for this?

== TIA,

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> For bandwidth considerations and to avoid dancing-cartoons-in-ya-face
> I mostly use `lynx` instead of a 'proper' browser.
> And normally I can even do blog-comments with `lynx`.
>
> But this one has got me confused:-
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f.../8917915/It-is
> -now-becoming-clear-Germany-has-had-enough-of-this-euro-
> mess.html#disqus_thread
>
> My understanding from some blog where this works, was that
> <URL>:comment
> positions lynx's cursor at <comment> on the downloaded page of
> <URL>, on my screen.
>
> Importantly, original article and all the current comments are
> 'on' [and hence downloaded] the <URL> 'page'.
>
> With this other/newer/fancy method, lynx fails to get the
> list of comments via <URL>.
>
> How does it get to the comment-list via: <URL>#disqus_thread ?
>
> What's the RFC for this?

AFAIK Disqus is a JavaScript comment engine and won't work on lynx.

--
Z pozdrowieniami,
Krzysztof Mitko

In article <javfb6$h2p$(E-Mail Removed)>, Krzysztof Mitko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > For bandwidth considerations and to avoid dancing-cartoons-in-ya-face
> > I mostly use `lynx` instead of a 'proper' browser.
> > And normally I can even do blog-comments with `lynx`.
> >
> > But this one has got me confused:-
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f.../8917915/It-is
> > -now-becoming-clear-Germany-has-had-enough-of-this-euro-
> > mess.html#disqus_thread
> >
> > My understanding from some blog where this works, was that
> > <URL>:comment
> > positions lynx's cursor at <comment> on the downloaded page of
> > <URL>, on my screen.
> >
> > Importantly, original article and all the current comments are
> > 'on' [and hence downloaded] the <URL> 'page'.
> >
> > With this other/newer/fancy method, lynx fails to get the
> > list of comments via <URL>.
> >
> > How does it get to the comment-list via: <URL>#disqus_thread ?
> >
> > What's the RFC for this?
>
> AFAIK Disqus is a JavaScript comment engine and won't work on lynx.
>
> --
> Z pozdrowieniami,
> Krzysztof Mitko
Ok, so then with JavaScript you've got the freedom to do anything,
and you're not restricted to a RFC.
And the game is determined by the current fad.
So if the market dominator introduces a new facility, others
must follow, or fall out?

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:25:58 +0000, no.top.post wrote:
> In article <javfb6$h2p$(E-Mail Removed)>, Krzysztof Mitko
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> > For bandwidth considerations and to avoid dancing-cartoons-in-ya-face
>> > I mostly use `lynx` instead of a 'proper' browser. And normally I can
>> > even do blog-comments with `lynx`.
>> >
>> > But this one has got me confused:-
>> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f.../8917915/It-is
>> > -now-becoming-clear-Germany-has-had-enough-of-this-euro-
>> > mess.html#disqus_thread
>> >
>> > My understanding from some blog where this works, was that
>> > <URL>:comment
>> > positions lynx's cursor at <comment> on the downloaded page of <URL>,
>> > on my screen.
>> >
>> > Importantly, original article and all the current comments are 'on'
>> > [and hence downloaded] the <URL> 'page'.
>> >
>> > With this other/newer/fancy method, lynx fails to get the list of
>> > comments via <URL>.
>> >
>> > How does it get to the comment-list via: <URL>#disqus_thread ?
>> >
>> > What's the RFC for this?
>>
>> AFAIK Disqus is a JavaScript comment engine and won't work on lynx.
>>
>> --
>> Z pozdrowieniami,
>> Krzysztof Mitko
> Ok, so then with JavaScript you've got the freedom to do anything, and
> you're not restricted to a RFC.
> And the game is determined by the current fad. So if the market
> dominator introduces a new facility, others must follow, or fall out?

Yes, that's pretty much how it works in the world of web design. Only
geeks are interested in standards, businesses are interested in making
their websites usable on the most popular browsers in order to maximise
revenue.

Making a webpage standards compliant to work with text based clients
would cost more than it would make back in revenue.

This isn't just a problem for text based browsers. Because web pages are
often made to work with either MSIE or Firefox, users of other browsers
will often find that pages don't render.

Deux wrote:

> Yes, that's pretty much how it works in the world of web design. Only
> geeks are interested in standards, businesses are interested in making
> their websites usable on the most popular browsers in order to maximise
> revenue.
>
> Making a webpage standards compliant to work with text based clients
> would cost more than it would make back in revenue.
>
> This isn't just a problem for text based browsers. Because web pages are
> often made to work with either MSIE or Firefox, users of other browsers
> will often find that pages don't render.
>
I solved that. If a page does not render, I give up on that site. I buy
whatever it is from another vendor, or do not buy it at all. So it costs
them not to support my browser (Firefox). They may not know they lost a
sale because of their browser arrogance, but it costs them nonetheless.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 14:35:01 up 39 days, 41 min, 4 users, load average: 5.38, 4.99, 4.85

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:40:43 -0500, Jean-David Beyer wrote:

> I solved that. If a page does not render, I give up on that site. I buy
> whatever it is from another vendor, or do not buy it at all. So it costs
> them not to support my browser (Firefox). They may not know they lost a
> sale because of their browser arrogance, but it costs them nonetheless.

Try factoring in the cost of extra development work needed, such as
planning, build, testing, maintenance. How much revenue would they
make from Lynx users?

Their browser arrogance would probably save them money.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:13:40 -0600, Deux wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:40:43 -0500, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
>> I solved that. If a page does not render, I give up on that site. I buy
>> whatever it is from another vendor, or do not buy it at all. So it
>> costs them not to support my browser (Firefox). They may not know they
>> lost a sale because of their browser arrogance, but it costs them
>> nonetheless.
>
> Try factoring in the cost of extra development work needed, such as
> planning, build, testing, maintenance. How much revenue would they make
> from Lynx users?
>
> Their browser arrogance would probably save them money.

I just noticed you said your browser is Firefox. Because of the large
market share it would cost a business money and would be foolish not
to support this popular browser.

My last posts really apply to every browser apart from IE and Firefox
(maybe Safari as well).

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.networking.]
On 2011-11-28, Deux <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:25:58 +0000, no.top.post wrote:
>> Ok, so then with JavaScript you've got the freedom to do anything, and
>> you're not restricted to a RFC.
>> And the game is determined by the current fad. So if the market
>> dominator introduces a new facility, others must follow, or fall out?
>
> Yes, that's pretty much how it works in the world of web design. Only
> geeks are interested in standards, businesses are interested in making
> their websites usable on the most popular browsers in order to maximise
> revenue.
>
> Making a webpage standards compliant to work with text based clients
> would cost more than it would make back in revenue.
>
> This isn't just a problem for text based browsers. Because web pages are
> often made to work with either MSIE or Firefox, users of other browsers
> will often find that pages don't render.
>
Many websites have a "mobile" version that can work with text-based, non-
javascript browsers. But as more people start using smart phones, there
will probably be less support for "dumb phones".


--
FUN is never having to say you're SUSHI!!

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Ok, so then with JavaScript you've got the freedom to do anything,
> and you're not restricted to a RFC.

Concise and accurate. The 'Microsnot' model of de facto proprietary
standards designed to blot out competition and stifle innovation and
increase profit.

Oddly it wasn't originally developed by Microsnot..VBscript/Jscript
trailed behind..


> And the game is determined by the current fad.
> So if the market dominator introduces a new facility, others
> must follow, or fall out?
>

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> Deux wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's pretty much how it works in the world of web design. Only
>> geeks are interested in standards, businesses are interested in making
>> their websites usable on the most popular browsers in order to maximise
>> revenue.
>>
>> Making a webpage standards compliant to work with text based clients
>> would cost more than it would make back in revenue.
>>
>> This isn't just a problem for text based browsers. Because web pages are
>> often made to work with either MSIE or Firefox, users of other browsers
>> will often find that pages don't render.
>>
> I solved that. If a page does not render, I give up on that site. I buy
> whatever it is from another vendor, or do not buy it at all. So it costs
> them not to support my browser (Firefox). They may not know they lost a
> sale because of their browser arrogance, but it costs them nonetheless.
>
Ditto.

Its not THAT hard to test in three or four browsers and to not do that
is pure sloppiness.