Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'?

Deux wrote:
> 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).

Those are the three you MIUST support back down to IE6 if you can. But
Chrome is now pretty mandatory as well. Also a lot of p[people are now
hooking in on small screen 'apps' on mobile kit..so it pays not to
assume a thousand plus pixel screen.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:48:29 -0600, Deux <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>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 use Firefox with an add-on called "No script"

http://noscript.net/

which blocks Javascript, Flash and other scripts from running on Web sites
unless and until I give them explicit permission to do so.

The main reason I do this is the cost of bandwidth, and some news sites that
automatically display large videos and consume a lot of bandwidth even if you
aren't watching.




--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

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.
>
Maybe. I find web sites that will not accept Linux Firefox browsers at
all, or will not put out HTML that Firefox can render.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:20:01 up 23:08, 4 users, load average: 4.61, 4.83, 5.00

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> 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.
>>
> Maybe. I find web sites that will not accept Linux Firefox browsers at
> all, or will not put out HTML that Firefox can render.
>
yup. Fuck em. If losing 25% of online business is a fair price to pay
for being crap at web design, that's their business decision.

I run a few public sites. Yes a lot of the incoming is IE this or that,
but a heck of a lot is NOT. Firefox on all platforms, Safari on macs
and the odd opera and increasingly chrome..are all common enough.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Steve Hayes <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:48:29 -0600, Deux <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >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 use Firefox with an add-on called "No script"
>
> http://noscript.net/
>
> which blocks Javascript, Flash and other scripts from running on Web sites
> unless and until I give them explicit permission to do so.
>
> The main reason I do this is the cost of bandwidth, and some news sites that
> automatically display large videos and consume a lot of bandwidth even if you
> aren't watching.
>
That's rather poor 'optimisation' for someone who's been on-line for
decades; since he used to run his own BBS.
But I see you still use M$loth [X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652]
You're not suposed to be in the adults/linux newsgroup you know.

IMO replacing IE with Firefox is just 'following a greener fad'.
It seems to be a monster, judging from the load-time.
If you want to read text like an adult, lynx/links/elinks... d/l in a flash.

Here's my d/l script, currently 2 lines: ---
gg1 Tiffindell+%22Supreme+Court%22+Appeal+Bank+India voidProperty
g1277 OlpcSAL OlpcSA

Which means [using `lynx`]
append to file: voidProperty the
google search on "Tiffindell", "Supreme Court", "Appeal","Bank, "India"
AND
append to file: OlpcSA, the contents of all the URLs in OlpcSAL,
with the URL as a header for each fetch,
and the separateing/terminating line: "<><><><><><><>"
for each fetch.
So that if I fetch 9 pages for a related topic, it automatically starts
building my own <book> of the topic.

This method has been running well for some years now and the
next stage of optimisation is described in:-
Newsgroups: comp.lang.awk
Subject: Can awk do this?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
Subject: Can ruby do this?

Years ago, I was impressed to read that a normal chemical plant
increases it's efficiency every year by tuning towrds optimum.

IMO people who think google and cloud will remove self-responsibility
will be hit like those who thought they could mortgage their house
for beer.
Ie. don't rely on a fad PRODUCT.