Faq irritant.

In the config.ini section of the FAQ, it shows the options for notify as:
1 - Does NOT output song / artist / etc on the serial port.
2 - Puts song/artist/etc on the serial port.

That's rather confusng as the numbers are really
0 - do not display info
1 - display info.

Being a relative unix moron, this is extremely confusing as to which values I should really put in. Especially when things are like: mute = -1, but the options are 0,x,and y.

1 - Does NOT output song / artist / etc on the serial port.
2 - Puts song/artist/etc on the serial port.

That's not what I see in there. In the developer info section of the RioCar site, it seems to me that it says:

notify=x
(where x is...)
0. does not output song / artist / etc. on the serial port.
1. puts song / artist / genre / etc. on the serial port.

Seems pretty clear to me? Don't know where the confusion lies?

(Disclaimer: I don't maintain that section of the site.)

OK... Now THAT's weird. If you look at the page in IE, it says 0 and 1. If you look at it in Netscape, is says 1 and 2. Running Netscape 4.76. Opera also sees things correctly, 0 and 1. -=shrug=- Nevermind. :/

Yeah, that is strange. It looks like they are using numbered lists for the options rather than explicitly defining them as 0 and 1. For some reason Netscape is ignoring the start="0" attribute in the <ol> flag. Maybe it is not standard.
My guess is that the numbered lists were put there by the editing program. Just like how MSWord thinks it can predict what I want to do, and starts to number lists for me. AutoFormat in most cases, is useless.

If you ask me it's completely useless. I KNOW how to type. You can not imagine the number of support questions I get regarding that.

Ironicially enough, Netscape is the company that asked for the START extension for the OL tags. I dug around and found a post from someone with Opera Software about it, and no workaround was known by them, and according to their post, it affects both Netscape 4 and 6. I'll search through the site and think of a workaround, for now I added a warning to that entry.

I guess the workaround is to just specify the #'s manually? I was going to go do it but smu wrote the HTML used in that section and I thought he might have better ideas as to how to approach it.

I personally think we should leave it as is and tell people to upgrade their damn browser. For all the complaining people do about IE not adhering to standards, it looks like Netscape isn't immune, either.

I personally think we should leave it as is and tell people to upgrade their damn browser. For all the complaining people do about IE not adhering to standards, it looks like Netscape isn't immune, either.

Just tried it in Mozilla 1.0 RC3 and the problem is there. It's not a standards issue from what I gathered from the Opera employee discussion, it's more of a problem with not stating what the standard should do.

Update: Whats the point of running an open source browser without supporting it? Bug submitted, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149314

Ah ha. So it's officially an S.E.P. now.

No, it's not an SEP, the person responsible for maintaining that part of the site needs to be given a dope slap, then he needs to correct it so he doesn't depend on ordered lists to show his options. I forget who is responsible for that, but whoever you are: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? Jeez, never trust the browser!

Save the dope slaps for when someone does something truly stupid, rather than an honest mistake. In this case, Sven was trying to contribute info for the benefit of the community, and used a convenient mechanism for numbering them. That mechanism happens to be broken in Netscape... Boo friggin' hoo.

If you can't trust the browser to render pages based on a specification, then let's all go back to Gopher and WAIS. While I think config options should be specified ver-batim, I understand the logic behind using OL tags, especially if you might add/change the values later on. Upon further review it probably looks better to use the numbers in plain text, or at least value=number attributes on the OL tags, but does something tiny like this deserve a dope slap?

Or maybe you should write a FAQ on how to write FAQ's. After enough studying, maybe we'll all be as perfect as you at it.

Several people maintain the developer info, Sven is responsible for that particular entry. (as noted by his signature on the entry )

Haha, Tom submits a bug against Mozilla on the day it goes gold.

http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.0/

Gotta love it.

Just an update on the issue, aparently someone found it back in 2000, and a long discussion about it and the standards occured. In the end, it was decided the way IE does it (allowing 0 an negative numbers) is correct. But nothing was ever done aparently...

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56088

the person responsible for maintaining that part of the site needs to be given a dope slap

Catch me if you can.









No, honestly, I didn't even remember using ordered lists for the numbers, but I still think there is nothing wrong with doing so. This conforms to HTML 3.2 standard, which all current browsers support (at least they say so), so it should be generated the way I intended it to be.

cu,
sven

PS: If anyone has the time to fix that entry, please do so.

Catch me if you can.

Heh.

I still think there is nothing wrong with doing so.

I don't need to argue this point, the very first post at the top of this thread has already made the point. It's as simple as this: He tried to get the information from riocar.org, and it gave him the incorrect information. Arguing about HTML standards and browser compliance is a completely moot issue. The fact is that someone from the site's target audience was unable to retrieve the information he needed because of the decision to use ordered lists for those entries. This completely transcends the concept of whether or not it's standards-compliant.

Heh... Didn't mean to start a fight.

I DID find the information eventually though...

Well, I gues the sentence wasn't really expressing what I meant:

I do not think I did anything wrong in the first place. I followed the standard, using a convenient way to put those numbers in. This isn't wrong, so I did nothing wrong. Now that a problem got obvious, this should be changed (but I don't have the time to do that).

cu,
sven

Fair enough.