Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #17744 > unrolled thread

Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge.

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge.  micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-13 19:59 -0400
    Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-03-13 17:20 -0700
      Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-03-13 17:23 -0700
        Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-03-13 21:33 -0600
          Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-13 23:57 -0400
        Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-14 01:22 -0400
    Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-13 22:42 -0400
    Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-13 23:26 -0400
    Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-14 07:44 +0100
      Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-14 11:18 -0400
        Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-14 16:05 +0000
    Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 00:26 -0700
    Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> - 2025-03-14 11:36 -0400
      Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-14 16:09 +0000
        Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> - 2025-03-14 12:33 -0400
          Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-14 13:03 -0400
            Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> - 2025-03-14 13:40 -0400
            Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-03-14 17:52 +0000
              Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> - 2025-03-15 09:39 -0400
      Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-14 12:12 -0400
        Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-14 16:16 +0000
          Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-14 12:45 -0400
    Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-14 12:04 -0400
      Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-14 16:18 +0000
        Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-14 12:41 -0400
      Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-15 22:20 -0400
        Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-15 23:02 -0400
    Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge.  micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-15 12:28 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#17769

Newyana2 wrote:

>    That's an interesting thing that I didn't know about, but it
> doesn't work for me. It renders the page as UTF-8 instead
> of ANSI, but the "repair" just means the funky characters
> are replaced by black diamonds with question marks inside

In the firefox of yesteryear, that menu let the user choose the required 
character set, now it just guesses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17774

On 3/14/2025 12:16 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote:
> 
>>    That's an interesting thing that I didn't know about, but it
>> doesn't work for me. It renders the page as UTF-8 instead
>> of ANSI, but the "repair" just means the funky characters
>> are replaced by black diamonds with question marks inside
> 
> In the firefox of yesteryear, that menu let the user choose the required 
> character set, now it just guesses.

    It actually guessed right. The encoding corruption turned
out not to just be ANSI vs UTF-8. I'm curious now
about the black diamond usage. It seems awfully fanatical
for any encoding translator to just remove wrong encoding
and replace it with what amounts to a sign that just says
"Wrong!" That's obviously not helpful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17765

On 3/13/2025 7:59 PM, micky wrote:
> 
> Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly
> 
> Whether looking with Firefox, Edge, or Chrome, there are errors in the
> 2nd, 7th, 8th, and other lines.  Why?
> 

    I checked into this further. The characters are UTF-8
EF BF BD. According to what I could find, it's a replacement
character, a ? inside a black diamond, which is used when an
"illegal" character code is encountered.

   So there are two problems. First is that the page is UTF-8
but is not marked as such. It should have <META charset="UTF-8">
So it's rendering as English ANSI. The second problem seems to
be that some editor or conversion process somehow created
these characters. Perhaps there were illegal characters like
some kind of ANSI character codes for curly braces, which then
got transposed to UTF-8 in an editor that, rather than dropping the
illegal characters, replaced them with the "illegal" marker of the
3 bytes EF BF BD.

   In some cases on my system, the characters get replaced with
spaces if I start to edit. I don't understand the details of how
that's working. It seems to be somehow connected to ANSI/UTF-8
back and forth.

   In ANSI English, bytes over 127 have specific character correspondence.
In other languuages the characters are different. In UTF-8, bytes over
127 are used in a system of up to 4 bytes to accomodate all languages
into one system that's still compatible with ASCII (the characters
represented by bytes 0-127).

  So this is not a browser problem. The webpage seems to have
gone through conversions, by someone who didn't know about encoding
and somehow hasn't noticed. The javascript refers to checking for
a userAgent "Netscape", so I'm guessing it's not a recent webpage. :)
It says it was created by RoboEditor. That's probably the culprit.

   If you download the webpage and insert a UTF-8 marker into the
source code you'll see the black diamond ?s. It's still perfectly
readable, just faulty encoding.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17770

Newyana2 wrote:

>   So this is not a browser problem. The webpage seems to have
> gone through conversions, by someone who didn't know about encoding
> and somehow hasn't noticed. The javascript refers to checking for
> a userAgent "Netscape", so I'm guessing it's not a recent webpage.

within the <head> it says
<meta name=date content="04 11, 2008 12:01:02 PM">

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17773

On 3/14/2025 12:18 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote:
> 
>>   So this is not a browser problem. The webpage seems to have
>> gone through conversions, by someone who didn't know about encoding
>> and somehow hasn't noticed. The javascript refers to checking for
>> a userAgent "Netscape", so I'm guessing it's not a recent webpage.
> 
> within the <head> it says
> <meta name=date content="04 11, 2008 12:01:02 PM">

   That's 17 years ago. And it seems likely that an even older
webpage was fed through Robohelp in order to create the
corruption to the encoding... I wonder if the Macrium people
have checked their help files in the past 25 years, to make sure
they're still relevant!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17790

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Fri, 14 Mar 2025 12:04:36 -0400, Newyana2
<newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>On 3/13/2025 7:59 PM, micky wrote:
>> 
>> Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly
>> 
>> Whether looking with Firefox, Edge, or Chrome, there are errors in the
>> 2nd, 7th, 8th, and other lines.  Why?
>> 
>
>    I checked into this further. The characters are UTF-8
>EF BF BD. According to what I could find, it's a replacement
>character, a ? inside a black diamond, which is used when an
>"illegal" character code is encountered.
>
>   So there are two problems. First is that the page is UTF-8
>but is not marked as such. It should have <META charset="UTF-8">
>So it's rendering as English ANSI. The second problem seems to
>be that some editor or conversion process somehow created
>these characters. Perhaps there were illegal characters like
>some kind of ANSI character codes for curly braces, which then
>got transposed to UTF-8 in an editor that, rather than dropping the
>illegal characters, replaced them with the "illegal" marker of the
>3 bytes EF BF BD.
>
>   In some cases on my system, the characters get replaced with
>spaces if I start to edit. I don't understand the details of how
>that's working. It seems to be somehow connected to ANSI/UTF-8
>back and forth.
>
>   In ANSI English, bytes over 127 have specific character correspondence.
>In other languuages the characters are different. In UTF-8, bytes over
>127 are used in a system of up to 4 bytes to accomodate all languages
>into one system that's still compatible with ASCII (the characters
>represented by bytes 0-127).
>
>  So this is not a browser problem. The webpage seems to have
>gone through conversions, by someone who didn't know about encoding
>and somehow hasn't noticed. The javascript refers to checking for
>a userAgent "Netscape", so I'm guessing it's not a recent webpage. :)
>It says it was created by RoboEditor. That's probably the culprit.
>
>   If you download the webpage and insert a UTF-8 marker into the
>source code you'll see the black diamond ?s. It's still perfectly
>readable, just faulty encoding.
>
All very interesting.  I went to school with a guy from Boston, Rob
O'Editor, but I don't think he would make mistakes like these. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17791

On Sat, 3/15/2025 10:20 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Fri, 14 Mar 2025 12:04:36 -0400, Newyana2
> <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/13/2025 7:59 PM, micky wrote:
>>>
>>> Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly
>>>
>>> Whether looking with Firefox, Edge, or Chrome, there are errors in the
>>> 2nd, 7th, 8th, and other lines.  Why?
>>>
>>
>>    I checked into this further. The characters are UTF-8
>> EF BF BD. According to what I could find, it's a replacement
>> character, a ? inside a black diamond, which is used when an
>> "illegal" character code is encountered.
>>
>>   So there are two problems. First is that the page is UTF-8
>> but is not marked as such. It should have <META charset="UTF-8">
>> So it's rendering as English ANSI. The second problem seems to
>> be that some editor or conversion process somehow created
>> these characters. Perhaps there were illegal characters like
>> some kind of ANSI character codes for curly braces, which then
>> got transposed to UTF-8 in an editor that, rather than dropping the
>> illegal characters, replaced them with the "illegal" marker of the
>> 3 bytes EF BF BD.
>>
>>   In some cases on my system, the characters get replaced with
>> spaces if I start to edit. I don't understand the details of how
>> that's working. It seems to be somehow connected to ANSI/UTF-8
>> back and forth.
>>
>>   In ANSI English, bytes over 127 have specific character correspondence.
>> In other languuages the characters are different. In UTF-8, bytes over
>> 127 are used in a system of up to 4 bytes to accomodate all languages
>> into one system that's still compatible with ASCII (the characters
>> represented by bytes 0-127).
>>
>>  So this is not a browser problem. The webpage seems to have
>> gone through conversions, by someone who didn't know about encoding
>> and somehow hasn't noticed. The javascript refers to checking for
>> a userAgent "Netscape", so I'm guessing it's not a recent webpage. :)
>> It says it was created by RoboEditor. That's probably the culprit.
>>
>>   If you download the webpage and insert a UTF-8 marker into the
>> source code you'll see the black diamond ?s. It's still perfectly
>> readable, just faulty encoding.
>>
> All very interesting.  I went to school with a guy from Boston, Rob
> O'Editor, but I don't think he would make mistakes like these. 
> 

So how is your Macrium project going ?

You've got it installed. Have you made your Rescue CD (or ISO) yet ?
If you have some spare USB sticks, you can put the Rescue CD on
a USB stick, using Rufus from the rufus.ie web site.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17786

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:59:40 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>
>Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly
>
>Whether looking with Firefox, Edge, or Chrome, there are errors in the
>2nd, 7th, 8th, and other lines.  Why?  

Thanks all.  As a 30-year Eudora user, whenever email text is displayed
improperly, I figure it's because it's Eudora which hasn't been updated
for 19 years, so when I saw something similar in a webbrowser, in 3 of
them, all new, I wondered how that can be.   You folks explained it. 

Micky. 

>
>Latest or almost latest version of every browser.  Certainly newer than
>the webpage itself which is from .... well they don't give the Last Rev.
>Date, of course.  That would be asking too much.  But it was probably
>years ago.
>
>https://reflect.macrium.com/webtutorial/how_to_create_a_disk_image.asp

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web