Ref to a WSJ.Com article in today's paper/site.
I am running eCS 1.1 with all the applicable fixes, Java 1.4.2 from
Innotek and:
Mozilla/5.0 (S/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060729 SeaMonkey/1.0.3
Unfortunately, if you do not have a WSJ.Com subscription, you will not
be able to access the URL above, but I hope someone can and can halp me
deal with the Wall Street Journal's Customer Service response below.
Problem: Whenever I try to access a specific story on this site, the
story initially displays just as it should at the top of the window.
There is then a brievf [a second or so] pause before the story goes way
down on the screen. It takes a couple of 'PgDn' clicks to get down to
the headline and the story. The space between the top of the column and
the start of the article is just blank. The left side of the window
with 'tabs' and 'links' are all still at the top. Any ads and other
links on the right go down with the article. The info is all there, it
is just irritating that it does this.
This problem has existed since early this year when WSJ 'introduced
their new site.' It also existed on an older Mozilla, but then they
fixed the problem. It came back when the 'new site' was opened.
I wrote describing this and received no response, but after escalating
it, I received the following response. What could be the difference
between Firefox and SeaMonkey that would cause this? How do I prove
they are just making excuses. I suspect they are using some M$
proprietary garbage that SM does not understand.
Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:46:00 -0400 (EDT), wsj.com wrote:

>>
>technical staff is aware that the Seamonkey browser does not work
>>with the site. Seamonkey is an ongoing development project with Mozilla.
>>It is not expected to be completed in the near future. For that reason,
>>the technical staff recommends that you use the Firefox browser.
TIA,
Carl
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Carl Gehr wrote:

Not directly related to your problem, but

technical staff is aware that the Seamonkey browser does not work
with the site. Seamonkey is an ongoing development project with Mozilla.
It is not expected to be completed in the near future. For that
reason, the technical staff recommends that you use the Firefox browser.

this is utter nonsense. Seamonkey is more complete than Firefox.

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Steve Wendt wrote:
Carl Gehr wrote:

Not directly related to your problem, but

technical staff is aware that the Seamonkey browser does not
work with the site. Seamonkey is an ongoing development project with
Mozilla.
It is not expected to be completed in the near future. For that
reason, the technical staff recommends that you use the Firefox
browser.

this is utter nonsense. Seamonkey is more complete than Firefox.

My reaction as well! I just wanted to hear it from someone who is more
into the technical details than I am.

Thanks,
Carl

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Felix Miata wrote:
Carl Gehr wrote:

>Ref to a WSJ.Com article in today's paper/site.


>I am running eCS 1.1 with all the applicable fixes, Java 1.4.2 from
>Innotek and:
Mozilla/5.0 (S/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060729 SeaMonkey/1.0.3

You need to upgrade to 1.0.5.

>Unfortunately, if you do not have a WSJ.Com subscription, you will not
>be able to access the URL above, but I hope someone can and can halp me
>deal with the Wall Street Journal's Customer Service response below.

>Problem: Whenever I try to access a specific story on this site, the
>story initially displays just as it should at the top of the window.
>There is then a brievf [a second or so] pause before the story goes way
>down on the screen. It takes a couple of 'PgDn' clicks to get down to
>the headline and the story. The space between the top of the column and
>the start of the article is just blank. The left side of the window
>with 'tabs' and 'links' are all still at the top. Any ads and other
>links on the right go down with the article. The info is all there, it
>is just irritating that it does this.

>This problem has existed since early this year when WSJ 'introduced
>their new site.' It also existed on an older Mozilla, but then they
>fixed the problem. It came back when the 'new site' was opened.

>I wrote describing this and received no response, but after escalating
>it, I received the following response. What could be the difference
>between Firefox and SeaMonkey that would cause this? How do I prove
>they are just making excuses. I suspect they are using some M$
>proprietary garbage that SM does not understand.

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:46:00 -0400 (EDT), wsj.com wrote:

technical staff is aware that the Seamonkey browser does not work
with the site. Seamonkey is an ongoing development project with Mozilla.
It is not expected to be completed in the near future. For that reason,
the technical staff recommends that you use the Firefox browser.

If you could do a save as web page complete on such a page and attach it
to someone might be
able to diagnose the site problem and assist WSJ with a solution.
I'll try to save the page, but here's another site with similar, but
different problems. This page has everything shifted to the right and
there is a lot of blank space on the top-left of the page. Anyone
should be able to get to this one:

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Carl Gehr wrote:

different problems. This page has everything shifted to the right and
there is a lot of blank space on the top-left of the page. Anyone
should be able to get to this one:

I see lots of blank space on the right side (probably somebody's idea of
making it fit on low-resolution screens).

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

09/18/06 15:26, Carl Gehr wrote:
[ snip ]
I'll try to save the page, but here's another site with similar, but
different problems. This page has everything shifted to the right and
there is a lot of blank space on the top-left of the page. Anyone
should be able to get to this one:

I looked at that page, and it displayed just fine. I tried shifting the
font size up one level (View -Text Zoom, although I used Ctrl Plus)
and the page wigged-out in a way that I imagine you describe.

FYI.

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Steve Wendt
<spamsux (AT) forgetit (DOT) org>], who wrote in article <KM3VJPYnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d (AT) mozilla (DOT) org>:
technical staff is aware that the Seamonkey browser does not work
with the site. Seamonkey is an ongoing development project with Mozilla.
It is not expected to be completed in the near future. For that
reason, the technical staff recommends that you use the Firefox browser.

this is utter nonsense. Seamonkey is more complete than Firefox.

Such wrong blanket statements hurt a lot. There may be many ways in
which SM is more complete than FF, but this is not true IN GENERAL. I
would even assume that user's experience is much better with FF than
with SM - many of my (not programming-minded) friends share my experience.

At least, after a short try time, I saw several things which were not
easy to do with SM, and trivial to do with FF; so I went back to FF.
(What I remember now is customization of toolbar [at least without
extensions present].)

Hope this helps,
Ilya

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Mark Hansen wrote:

I looked at that page, and it displayed just fine. I tried shifting the
font size up one level (View -Text Zoom, although I used Ctrl Plus)
and the page wigged-out in a way that I imagine you describe.

yes, I can see that.

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

Seamonkey is an ongoing development project with Mozilla.
It is not expected to be completed in the near future.

>this is utter nonsense. Seamonkey is more complete than Firefox.

Such wrong blanket statements hurt a lot. There may be many ways in
which SM is more complete than FF, but this is not true IN GENERAL.

It is definitely true in the context that is quoted. Firefox is the
"ongoing development project" which "is not expected to be completed in
the near future" as compared to Seamonkey!

(What I remember now is customization of toolbar [at least without
extensions present].)

Yes, toolbar customization is not a feature of Seamonkey (although it
will be in version 1.5, apparently).

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Steve Wendt wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:


>>
>I looked at that page, and it displayed just fine. I tried shifting the
>font size up one level (View -Text Zoom, although I used Ctrl Plus)
>and the page wigged-out in a way that I imagine you describe.

yes, I can see that.
Hmmm Steve says he sees the white on the right. I cannot even see
the right side of the page unless I use the scroll bar that, even if I
display the window as full screen, indicates about half of the display
area is not displayed.

I don't think I would be allowed to attach a screen-shot of the screen,
so let me try to describe it more fully:
* The red 'menu bar' across the top of the page fits the normal size
window I use for all web pages. [About 75% of the display area is
covered by the window.]
* The Marriott logo is under the red bar and is positioned approx 75%
of the way from the left edge of the screen [or 25% from the right, if
you prefer.]
* The above two items are what I would characterize as the page
'header'. Scrolling to the right, is nothing but blanks.
* There is another set of five links below the window 'header' that
points to:
- Find & Reserve - Deals - Destinations - Events & Meetings - Marriott Rewards
* Then, there is a 'stack of links' on the right of the window [as I
see it] that points to:
* Courtyard Columbia Northwest Home
* Photo Tour
* Guest Rooms in Detail
* Hotel Specials & Packages
* About This Hotel
* Area Information
* Maps & Transportation
* Plan Events & Meetings
* Use Marriott Rewards Points
* Printable Hotel Fact Sheet
about 60% of the 'stack' actually is visible without scrolling.
This 'stack' of links, I believe to be the problem! I believe this
stuff should actually all be at the LEFT MARGIN of the page, because if
it were all the way left with the portion of the page that is scrolled
off to the right of the window, then the whole thing would appear in the
window. The 'stuff' to the right that is not displayed without
scrolling is a picture of the front of the hotel and a picture of a room.
* Scrolling all the way down to the bottom of the page is nothing but
white space until I get to the 'footer' of the page. Like the 'header'
it 'fits' the window size. And, scrolling to the right of both the
header and the footer is nothing but white area.

So, basically, the header and footer display correctly, the 'body' of
the page is shifted off to the right of the window, out of sight without
scrolling.

If I click on the bottom link in the 'stack' to view a 'Printable'
page, the same exact situation exists. The header/footer are where they
are supposed to be; the 'body' is all scrolled off to the right.

Back to the WSJ site, the problem is much the same, except the white
space is ABVE the information I want to see and I have to scroll DWN
instead of right to view the story.

I hope this verbal description makes sense

Thanks,
Carl

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Felix Miata wrote:
06/09/18 18:26 (GMT-0400) Carl Gehr apparently typed:

That's just one of the gazillion magazine pages hosted on the web. They
aren't web pages, as they aren't made to adapt to the browser and user
opening them. If you want to see it go nuts, just use a 20px minimum
font size. When I disable the minimum and don't use zoom, it "looks"
just like a magazine page, but everything's so microscopic that the page
is useless, as if the magazine was 20 feet away from me. It's a somewhat
worse case than here:

Courtesy of nearly 3 year old
this has been posted
with Netscape 4.

With all due respect, I have no idea what you are saying!
The site:

is NT a magazine site. It is a HTEL reservation site.

[Yes, the WSJ is a 'publication' but it is not a 'magazine'. And, the
site was working fine until a few months ago.] Likewise, I have no idea
what you mean it is not a 'web site'

Finally, I clicked on the 'show_bug' and, while I did not read every
post to it, I see no connection whatsoever to the problem of malformed
pages.

Carl

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Carl Gehr wrote:
Steve Wendt wrote:
>Mark Hansen wrote:
>>

I looked at that page, and it displayed just fine. I tried shifting the
font size up one level (View -Text Zoom, although I used Ctrl Plus)
and the page wigged-out in a way that I imagine you describe.
>>
>yes, I can see that.
Hmmm Steve says he sees the white on the right. I cannot even see
the right side of the page unless I use the scroll bar that, even if I
display the window as full screen, indicates about half of the display
area is not displayed.

I don't think I would be allowed to attach a screen-shot of the screen,
so let me try to describe it more fully:
* The red 'menu bar' across the top of the page fits the normal size
window I use for all web pages. [About 75% of the display area is
covered by the window.]
* The Marriott logo is under the red bar and is positioned approx 75%
of the way from the left edge of the screen [or 25% from the right, if
you prefer.]
* The above two items are what I would characterize as the page
'header'. Scrolling to the right, is nothing but blanks.
* There is another set of five links below the window 'header' that
points to:
>- Find & Reserve - Deals - Destinations - Events & Meetings - Marriott
>Rewards
* Then, there is a 'stack of links' on the right of the window [as I
see it] that points to:
>* Courtyard Columbia Northwest Home
>* Photo Tour
>* Guest Rooms in Detail
>* Hotel Specials & Packages
>* About This Hotel
>* Area Information
>* Maps & Transportation
>* Plan Events & Meetings
>* Use Marriott Rewards Points
>* Printable Hotel Fact Sheet
about 60% of the 'stack' actually is visible without scrolling.
This 'stack' of links, I believe to be the problem! I believe this
stuff should actually all be at the LEFT MARGIN of the page, because if
it were all the way left with the portion of the page that is scrolled
off to the right of the window, then the whole thing would appear in the
window. The 'stuff' to the right that is not displayed without
scrolling is a picture of the front of the hotel and a picture of a room.
* Scrolling all the way down to the bottom of the page is nothing but
white space until I get to the 'footer' of the page. Like the 'header'
it 'fits' the window size. And, scrolling to the right of both the
header and the footer is nothing but white area.

So, basically, the header and footer display correctly, the 'body' of
the page is shifted off to the right of the window, out of sight without
scrolling.

If I click on the bottom link in the 'stack' to view a 'Printable'
page, the same exact situation exists. The header/footer are where they
are supposed to be; the 'body' is all scrolled off to the right.

Back to the WSJ site, the problem is much the same, except the white
space is ABVE the information I want to see and I have to scroll DWN
instead of right to view the story.

I hope this verbal description makes sense

Thanks,
Carl
I was just reading on another thread about spoofing the browser ID with
a User Agent and decided to try the WSJ.com site to see what would
happen. I have PrefBar installed, so i tried the already available:
IE 6.0 WinXP
Same problem as with the S/2 ID.
Then I tried:
NS 6.2 Lin
Worked like a charm! What a bunch of DRKS at WSJ.Com!

I'm going to let them know what I found and see how they try to squirm
out of their stupidity!

Carl

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Carl Gehr wrote:
Steve Wendt wrote:
>Mark Hansen wrote:
>>

I looked at that page, and it displayed just fine. I tried shifting the
font size up one level (View -Text Zoom, although I used Ctrl Plus)
and the page wigged-out in a way that I imagine you describe.
>>
>yes, I can see that.
Hmmm Steve says he sees the white on the right. I cannot even see
the right side of the page unless I use the scroll bar that, even if I
display the window as full screen, indicates about half of the display
area is not displayed.

I don't think I would be allowed to attach a screen-shot of the screen,
so let me try to describe it more fully:
* The red 'menu bar' across the top of the page fits the normal size
window I use for all web pages. [About 75% of the display area is
covered by the window.]
* The Marriott logo is under the red bar and is positioned approx 75%
of the way from the left edge of the screen [or 25% from the right, if
you prefer.]
* The above two items are what I would characterize as the page
'header'. Scrolling to the right, is nothing but blanks.
* There is another set of five links below the window 'header' that
points to:
>- Find & Reserve - Deals - Destinations - Events & Meetings - Marriott
>Rewards
* Then, there is a 'stack of links' on the right of the window [as I
see it] that points to:
>* Courtyard Columbia Northwest Home
>* Photo Tour
>* Guest Rooms in Detail
>* Hotel Specials & Packages
>* About This Hotel
>* Area Information
>* Maps & Transportation
>* Plan Events & Meetings
>* Use Marriott Rewards Points
>* Printable Hotel Fact Sheet
about 60% of the 'stack' actually is visible without scrolling.
This 'stack' of links, I believe to be the problem! I believe this
stuff should actually all be at the LEFT MARGIN of the page, because if
it were all the way left with the portion of the page that is scrolled
off to the right of the window, then the whole thing would appear in the
window. The 'stuff' to the right that is not displayed without
scrolling is a picture of the front of the hotel and a picture of a room.
* Scrolling all the way down to the bottom of the page is nothing but
white space until I get to the 'footer' of the page. Like the 'header'
it 'fits' the window size. And, scrolling to the right of both the
header and the footer is nothing but white area.

So, basically, the header and footer display correctly, the 'body' of
the page is shifted off to the right of the window, out of sight without
scrolling.

If I click on the bottom link in the 'stack' to view a 'Printable'
page, the same exact situation exists. The header/footer are where they
are supposed to be; the 'body' is all scrolled off to the right.

Back to the WSJ site, the problem is much the same, except the white
space is ABVE the information I want to see and I have to scroll DWN
instead of right to view the story.

I hope this verbal description makes sense

Thanks,
Carl
I was just reading on another thread about spoofing the browser ID with
a User Agent and decided to try the WSJ.com site to see what would
happen. I have PrefBar installed, so i tried the already available:
IE 6.0 WinXP
Same problem as with the S/2 ID.
Then I tried:
NS 6.2 Lin
Worked like a charm! What a bunch of DRKS at WSJ.Com!

I'm going to let them know what I found and see how they try to squirm
out of their stupidity!

I should have added, the Marriott site is still a mess with any option
available So, that's still an open issue. I'll have to contact them
again.

Carl

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Felix Miata
<find (AT) my (DOT) website>], who wrote in article <@mozilla.org>:
SM has more power than FF as installed. It can do much more without
additional software than can FF.

As I said, MY experience is exactly the opposite.

I, and the SeaMonkey developers, in general, do not share your opinion.

This is not "an opinion"; it is "an experience". Do not you see the
difference?

The problem with FF is there are things SM can do I depend on that
either cannot be done in FF at all, or depend on

Possible. But this in no way supports your (wrong) claim that "SM has
more power than FF as installed". In some respects it does; in many
others the situation is the opposite.

Hope this helps,
Ilya

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Felix Miata wrote:
06/09/19 02:18 (GMT-0400) Carl Gehr apparently typed:

>Felix Miata wrote:

06/09/18 18:26 (GMT-0400) Carl Gehr apparently typed:

That's just one of the gazillion magazine pages hosted on the web. They
aren't web pages, as they aren't made to adapt to the browser and user
opening them. If you want to see it go nuts, just use a 20px minimum
font size. When I disable the minimum and don't use zoom, it "looks"
just like a magazine page, but everything's so microscopic that the page
is useless, as if the magazine was 20 feet away from me. It's a somewhat
worse case than here:

>With all due respect, I have no idea what you are saying!
>The site:
>
>is NT a magazine site. It is a HTEL reservation site.

>[Yes, the WSJ is a 'publication' but it is not a 'magazine'. And, the
>site was working fine until a few months ago.] Likewise, I have no idea
>what you mean it is not a 'web site'

Magazine refers not to content. Magazine refers to design. Magazine
pages come in one size to fit the paper size. Most of today's web sites
host magazine pages instead of web pages.

Web pages are not paper. Web browsers come in an infinite variety of
viewport sizes. They're used on screens with a wide range of resolutions
in a wide variety of sizes. Magazine pages don't accomodate that
variety, staying a fixed pixel size no matter how many pixels are
available or what size those pixels are. That's what bbcSS.html above
was provided to illustrate.

Real web pages are fluid, and adapt to the environment of the user,
including his viewport size. If that size is wide, a web page will in
all probability fill its width, instead of remaining 770px wide like a
piece of magazine paper. If the visitor's preferered font size is twice
the px size of the page author's, the page will accomodate it, instead
of cramming twice as big text into the same fixed width and making line
lengths too short and/or causing text to overlap or disappear.

More here:

Thanks, Felix, for the explanation. In this context, I do not think
that the WSJ site would necessarily qualify as a 'magazine' because, in
general, the page does mold itself to the window, font, etc. that I
have. At least, it has in the past; ignoring this particular bug. In
fact, using the spoofed ID, I just displayed an article page and varied
the font size from very large to quite small using Ctrl-/+. The page
reacted quite appropriately to the changes.

So, the problem does not appear to me to be related to a 'magazine'
format. It is more likely something that the programmer has done to
accommodate some perceived difference between SM and Netscape as
implemented on Linux. The former is a mess; the latter works just fine.

Thanks, again.

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Carl Gehr wrote:


>>
>Magazine pages come in one size to fit the paper size.

In this context, I do not think that the WSJ site would necessarily
qualify as a 'magazine'

Felix was referring to the Marriott site. It displays as a big mess for
you because of the font size used. If you shrink the font size down to
their intended "magazine" font, it displays aligned in a more expected
fashion.

In other words, just because the WSJ and Marriott sites appear to have a
similar issue, they are in fact very different issues.

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Felix Miata
<find (AT) my (DOT) website>], who wrote in article <@mozilla.org>:
>SM has more power than FF as installed. It can do much more without
>additional software than can FF.

As I said, MY experience is exactly the opposite.

Do you know what "as installed" means?

Apparently, you do not read what I write. And I do not write
pages-and-pages of vague prose; sigh

This is not "an opinion"; it is "an experience". Do not you see the
difference?

Nope.

Enough said.

Possible. But this in no way supports your (wrong) claim that "SM has
more power than FF as installed".

Nothing wrong with my claim.

LL.

FF has roughly half as many prefs as SM.

Even if there are areas where SM has 100x times more power than FF, if
NE feature people need is less capable, this makes the BLANKET claim
"more power" wrong.

In some respects it does; in many
others the situation is the opposite.

You're right. Neither is or can be best for everyone.

I'm not discussing this. What I say is simple: FF has MRE PWER than
SM *in some areas*; thus one should not issue BLANKET claims, but
qualify them, as in "better for me", or "more power in most respects".

Hope this helps,
Ilya

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Steve Wendt wrote:
Carl Gehr wrote:

Magazine pages come in one size to fit the paper size.
>>
>In this context, I do not think that the WSJ site would necessarily
>qualify as a 'magazine'

Felix was referring to the Marriott site. It displays as a big mess for
you because of the font size used. If you shrink the font size down to
their intended "magazine" font, it displays aligned in a more expected
fashion.

In other words, just because the WSJ and Marriott sites appear to have a
similar issue, they are in fact very different issues.
Sorry, but then you are BTH wrong!

I changed the TEXT-ZM to NE PERCENT [1%] and it still displays the
entire LEFT side of the window as BLANKS! Since there is N text on the
left side, I fail to see how text size could have anything to do with it.

I also changed it to 500% and, yes, this did cause all kinds of text to
overlap and overflow the boxes [?] where the text was supposed to be.
But, anyone who does this, deserves to see garbage.

If you would like to provide me with a 'real' E-Mail ID, I will send you
a screen shot that should show what I am taking about. Yes, the screen
is a mess, but the blank space that I am trying to describe is totally
unchanged by any manipulation of Text-Zoom.

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
<SNIP>
I'm not discussing this. What I say is simple: FF has MRE PWER than
SM *in some areas*; thus one should not issue BLANKET claims, but
qualify them, as in "better for me", or "more power in most respects".

Hope this helps,
Ilya
WADR, Ilya, I couldn't care less which BRWSER function is better or
worse. I opened this thread because I USE SeaMonkey and so I thought it
pertinent to mention the environment. FF [unless something major has
changed] has no E-Mail component; has to NewsReader component; i.e.,
it is NT a SUITE package. If a full function suite package is ever not
available, I will find a totally different project to provide my
Internet access tool. I use very few add-ons. Nitpicking one attribute
over another is, frankly, just purely not productive.

If the two sites that I have mentioned worked with one and not the
other, then we've discovered a BUG, not a functional deficiency.

Yes, the WSJ Rep indicated a preference of FF, but that was based on
IGNRANCE of the entire Mozilla project. And, I proved that their
problem is not due to anything regarding SM, by simply spoofing the
Agent ID. I have also written them to explain that they are not going
to get away with such a flimsy excuse for a bad site.

If the readers of this thread are interested in the outcome, I will be
happy to post a final status.

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Felix Miata
<find (AT) my (DOT) website>], who wrote in article <@mozilla.org>:
Generally, I prefer simplicity, but not at a cost of not being able to
do what needs doing. The need for extensions and separate applications
to be able to do what I need to do makes FF more complicated and
difficult for me, so the choice of SM is clear.

You still do not understand. Let me give you some events in their
timeframes.

a) I read your postings saying that SM is more powerful than FF out
of the box, period;

b) Having many occasions to evaluate your opinions, and finding them
mostly valid, I (naively, as I know now) think that what you
wanted to say was indeed

"SM is more powerful than FF out of the box",

and not

"in some respects, SM is more powerful than FF out of the box",

(as your intent, apparently, was).

c) So I download SM, and try to switch my usage to SM;

c1) I spent several hours trying to locate in SM various features
which are present in FF out of the box.

c2) I can't.

c3) I decide that either I'm too stupid to use SM, or it SM is not
as powerful as FF out of the box in the areas I'm interested in.

Net result is a lot of lost time, all due to taking what you say at
its face value. So my point is: please, in the future, be more
prudent when comparing stuff; some people may listen to what you say. ;-)

Thanks,
Ilya

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Kenn Yuill wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
>09/18/06 15:26, Carl Gehr wrote:
>[ snip ]
I'll try to save the page, but here's another site with similar, but
different problems. This page has everything shifted to the right
and there is a lot of blank space on the top-left of the page.
Anyone should be able to get to this one:


>>
>I looked at that page, and it displayed just fine. I tried shifting the
>font size up one level (View -Text Zoom, although I used Ctrl Plus)
>and the page wigged-out in a way that I imagine you describe.
>>
>FYI.

With settings for font of 11 for "Minimum font size." & "Allow documents
to use other fonts.", there is a shift of the text & graphics to the
right, which is corrected here by setting the minimum size to 10.

THANK YU, Kenn!

I had the minimum size set to 12. And, as you indicated, with minimum
of 10, it now displays correctly No scroll bar on the bottom at all.

course, in my mind, this is still a problem with something on the
site. So, I will let them know what you discovered. Maybe they can
figure out what is causing this.

Thanks, again!
Carl

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Please take this _user_ discussion into our _user_ group, which is
mozilla.support.seamonkey - this is no topic about development itself,
so it doesn't belong into mozilla.dev.*

Robert Kaiser

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Please take this _user_ discussion into our _user_ group, which is
mozilla.support.seamonkey - this is no topic about development itself,
so it doesn't belong into mozilla.dev.*

Robert Kaiser
problem Robert,
There is no user group for S/2 versions of this software as far as I know.
PG

dev-ports-os2 mailing list
dev-ports-os2 (AT) lists (DOT) mozilla.org