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

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #12651 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

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. Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-03-13 18:23 -0700
      Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-03-14 02:44 +0100
        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. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-03-14 07:15 +0000
            Re: Everything new, but still displayed incorrectly, FF, Chrome, and Edge. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-15 12:23 -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]

#12678

On 3/14/2025 12:33 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
> On 3/14/2025 12:09 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>
>>> click on the view header and then the "repair text
>>> encoding" option.  Voila!  All done!
>>
>> Well, repair'ish ... it just turns all the grot characters into
>> "the replacement character" � U+FFFD.
>>

> True,  But do you dispute that it's now easier to read?
> 
     You get the Trump Logic Award for that one. :) It's
not repairing anything. It's just re-rendering in different
encoding. It sniffed the charcter encoding, recognized
likely UTF-8, and switched it. That's a nice function to
know about, but it's not repair. Repair would require full
English literacy. Repair will be when someone at Macrium
realizes their webpages have been broken for close to
20 years. I give them credit, though. Aside from that
mess-up, the page is clear and simple. (

   Well, except for the fact that they completely screwed up
the images unnecessarily, so that they don't show at all without
script. And check out the scrrript-type attributes:
type="8eadf7e62a08f178f0f17509-text/javascript"

This is actually a very weird webpage.

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

#12679

On 3/14/2025 1:03 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 3/14/2025 12:33 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
>> On 3/14/2025 12:09 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Retirednoguilt wrote:
>>>
>>>> click on the view header and then the "repair text
>>>> encoding" option.  Voila!  All done!
>>>
>>> Well, repair'ish ... it just turns all the grot characters into
>>> "the replacement character" � U+FFFD.
>>>
> 
>> True,  But do you dispute that it's now easier to read?
>>
>      You get the Trump Logic Award for that one. :) It's
> not repairing anything. It's just re-rendering in different
> encoding. It sniffed the charcter encoding, recognized
> likely UTF-8, and switched it. That's a nice function to
> know about, but it's not repair. Repair would require full
> English literacy. Repair will be when someone at Macrium
> realizes their webpages have been broken for close to
> 20 years. I give them credit, though. Aside from that
> mess-up, the page is clear and simple. (
> 
>    Well, except for the fact that they completely screwed up
> the images unnecessarily, so that they don't show at all without
> script. And check out the scrrript-type attributes:
> type="8eadf7e62a08f178f0f17509-text/javascript"
> 
> This is actually a very weird webpage.
> 

Using Trump, logic, and award all in the same sentence is incompatible
with my understanding of recent U.S. political history and the text that
provides the ground rules of our government.  See the following
reference:  U.S. Constitution.

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

#12680

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> writes:


> This is actually a very weird webpage.

Maybe it is specially constructed to exploit vulnerabilities in
libfreetype6.

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

#12693

On 3/14/2025 1:52 PM, Richmond wrote:
> Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> writes:
> 
> 
>> This is actually a very weird webpage.
> 
> Maybe it is specially constructed to exploit vulnerabilities in
> libfreetype6.

The trolls come out of their holes just as sure as day follows night.

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

#12671

On 3/14/2025 11:36 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:

> 
> The web page is not encoded in keeping with modern (current) standards.
> Very easy to fix in current firefox for windows.  With the menu bar
> displaying the menu bar, that the "file   edit   options    tools
> save"  headers, click on the view header and then the "repair text
> encoding" option.  Voila!  All done!
> 

   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,
to indicate the character encoding is faulty. So now it's
proper UTF-8, but the original encoding was corrupted.
For FF to repair that it would have to parse the meaning of
the text and guess whether an ', a quote or a comma is called
for.

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

#12672

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]

#12676

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]

#12668

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]

#12673

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]

#12675

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]

#12719

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]

#12721

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]

#12698

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.software.firefox

csiph-web