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

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #826 > unrolled thread

Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2011-11-28 07:11 +0000
    Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Krzysztof Mitko <fakemail@krzysztof.at.eml.dot.cc> - 2011-11-28 08:04 +0000
      Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2011-11-28 15:25 +0000
        Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Deux <deux@none.none> - 2011-11-28 10:48 -0600
          Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2011-11-28 14:40 -0500
            Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Deux <deux@none.none> - 2011-11-28 16:13 -0600
              Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Deux <deux@none.none> - 2011-11-28 16:27 -0600
                Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-11-29 00:36 +0000
              Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 09:24 -0500
                Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-11-30 14:37 +0000
            Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-11-29 00:34 +0000
          Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Bill Marcum <bill@lat.localnet> - 2011-11-28 17:50 -0500
          Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2011-11-29 08:23 +0200
            Re (2): Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2011-12-01 13:25 +0000
        Re: Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-11-29 00:32 +0000

#826 — 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/financialcrisis/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,

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#827

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
no.top.post@gmail.com 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/financialcrisis/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

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

#828

In article <javfb6$h2p$1@dont-email.me>, Krzysztof Mitko <fakemail@krzysztof.at.eml.dot.cc> wrote: 

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
> no.top.post@gmail.com 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/financialcrisis/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?

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

#829

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:25:58 +0000, no.top.post wrote:
> In article <javfb6$h2p$1@dont-email.me>, Krzysztof Mitko
> <fakemail@krzysztof.at.eml.dot.cc> wrote:
> 
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
>> no.top.post@gmail.com 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/financialcrisis/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.

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

#830

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

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

#831

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.

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

#832

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).

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

#835

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.

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

#843

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

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

#844

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.

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

#834

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.

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

#836

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.networking.]
On 2011-11-28, Deux <deux@none.none> 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!!

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

#837

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:48:29 -0600, Deux <deux@none.none> 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

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

#851 — Re (2): Strange blog-comment URL 'mechanism'?

In article <09u8d7hiqmnq4n0a2dquvat4e9rtrtvlba@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: 

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:48:29 -0600, Deux <deux@none.none> 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.

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

#833

no.top.post@gmail.com 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?
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web