Whenever I save a page from Wikipedia, or any other MW site, using Firefox, the resulting HTML loses its screen stylesheet. This seems to be due to the way we are embedding the stylesheet, i.e.:
<style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![CDATA[*/ @import "/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?61"; /*]]>*/</style>
This appears to cause Firefox to not treat the stylesheet as part of the page it needs to retrieve. Is there a way to avoid this behavior, either on the client or on the server side?
I am not experiencing this problem, are you using any custom CSS or JavaScript on your PC or on the wiki via the User:Example/example.ext pages. Robert.
On 25/03/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Whenever I save a page from Wikipedia, or any other MW site, using Firefox, the resulting HTML loses its screen stylesheet. This seems to be due to the way we are embedding the stylesheet, i.e.:
<style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![CDATA[*/ @import "/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?61"; /*]]>*/</style>
This appears to cause Firefox to not treat the stylesheet as part of the page it needs to retrieve. Is there a way to avoid this behavior, either on the client or on the server side?
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 25/03/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Whenever I save a page from Wikipedia, or any other MW site, using Firefox, the resulting HTML loses its screen stylesheet. This seems to be due to the way we are embedding the stylesheet, i.e.:
<style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![CDATA[*/ @import "/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?61"; /*]]>*/</style>
This appears to cause Firefox to not treat the stylesheet as part of the page it needs to retrieve. Is there a way to avoid this behavior, either on the client or on the server side?
Is it happening with any other browsers? I seem to vaguely recall some previous discussion on this problem, possibly late last year.
Rob Church
On 25/03/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Is it happening with any other browsers? I seem to vaguely recall some previous discussion on this problem, possibly late last year.
Opera seems to be capable of resolving the CSS link and downloads the CSS files when using the "save as [with images]" option; IE 7 behaves like Firefox, and doesn't seem to cope.
Rob Church
On 3/26/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/03/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Is it happening with any other browsers? I seem to vaguely recall some previous discussion on this problem, possibly late last year.
Opera seems to be capable of resolving the CSS link and downloads the CSS files when using the "save as [with images]" option; IE 7 behaves like Firefox, and doesn't seem to cope.
The underlying problem for Firefox is Mozilla bug 126309: "save page does not save @import -ed CSS"
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126309
-- John
On 3/25/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Whenever I save a page from Wikipedia, or any other MW site, using Firefox, the resulting HTML loses its screen stylesheet. This seems to be due to the way we are embedding the stylesheet, i.e.:
<style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![CDATA[*/ @import "/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css?61"; /*]]>*/</style>
This appears to cause Firefox to not treat the stylesheet as part of the page it needs to retrieve. Is there a way to avoid this behavior, either on the client or on the server side?
Dunno, but I'll observe that that syntax was probably used rather than <link> to stop CSS 1 clients from downloading the stylesheet.
On 3/25/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
Dunno, but I'll observe that that syntax was probably used rather than
<link> to stop CSS 1 clients from downloading the stylesheet.
Is that for bandwidth or display reasons? It would be lovely if we could work around this issue in Firefox and IE somehow, as it directly impacts the usefulness of saved pages for millions of readers. Aside from the relation between layout and readability, a person who has no idea what a stylesheet is may, from the very drastic visual differences, infer that something went seriously wrong with the saving process, and just give up.
Erik Moeller wrote:
Dunno, but I'll observe that that syntax was probably used rather than
<link> to stop CSS 1 clients from downloading the stylesheet.
Is that for bandwidth or display reasons? It would be lovely if we could work around this issue in Firefox and IE somehow, as it directly impacts the usefulness of saved pages for millions of readers. Aside from the relation between layout and readability, a person who has no idea what a stylesheet is may, from the very drastic visual differences, infer that something went seriously wrong with the saving process, and just give up.
In fact it did go wrong. They may give up if they want, but they will surely notice that the page content is saved (which imho is what they will want).
They aren't bandwidth reasons, but compatibility ones.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/25/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
Dunno, but I'll observe that that syntax was probably used rather than
<link> to stop CSS 1 clients from downloading the stylesheet.
Is that for bandwidth or display reasons?
To keep Netscape 4.x from completely screwing up every page's layout and crashing on most of them.
On the one hand, occasional mild aesthetic inconvenience for a small minority of people who use an obscure feature of some browsers...
On the other hand, complete failure of the site to function for a small minority of people who use an older, and *almost* but not quite dead browser.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Monday 02 April 2007 18:09:44 Brion Vibber wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/25/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
Dunno, but I'll observe that that syntax was probably used rather than
<link> to stop CSS 1 clients from downloading the stylesheet.
Is that for bandwidth or display reasons?
To keep Netscape 4.x from completely screwing up every page's layout and crashing on most of them.
On the one hand, occasional mild aesthetic inconvenience for a small minority of people who use an obscure feature of some browsers...
"Save-as" is an obscure feature?
On the other hand, complete failure of the site to function for a small minority of people who use an older, and *almost* but not quite dead browser.
How many hits from Netscape 4.0 per month does Wikipedia have?
I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported. However, that is not my decision to make.
All the best,
Tels
- -- Signed on Mon Apr 2 20:40:40 2007 with key 0x93B84C15. View my photo gallery: http://bloodgate.com/photos PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"Most of the screen on a blog is blank for an imaginary populace of readers still using 640x480 resolution. I didn't buy a 19" monitor to have 50% of its screen realestate pissed away on firing white pixels, you assholes."
-- maddox from xmission
On 02/04/07, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported. However, that is not my decision to make.
If we stopped supporting outdated, bug-ridden, insecure and incomplete browsers, we'd lose the vast number of users who browse Wikipedia, voluntarily and involuntarily, via Internet Explorer.
Rob Church
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Church wrote:
On 02/04/07, Tels wrote:
I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported. However, that is not my decision to make.
If we stopped supporting outdated, bug-ridden, insecure and incomplete browsers, we'd lose the vast number of users who browse Wikipedia, voluntarily and involuntarily, via Internet Explorer.
Ba-dum ching!
Seriously though, given the choice between a mild aesthetic change for saving web pages to disk in some browsers (who actually does this anyway?) and *completely destroying the ability to view the site* for people stuck on older machines...
Well policy-wise I guess it comes down to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick :)
Of course it'd be *nice* to cleanly work with the save function of more popular browsers, but as long as we're forced to make the choice, not crashing the old-but-hard-to-upgrade minority still gets priority.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
On 4/2/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Church wrote:
On 02/04/07, Tels wrote:
I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported. However, that is not my decision to make.
If we stopped supporting outdated, bug-ridden, insecure and incomplete browsers, we'd lose the vast number of users who browse Wikipedia, voluntarily and involuntarily, via Internet Explorer.
Ba-dum ching!
Seriously though, given the choice between a mild aesthetic change for saving web pages to disk in some browsers (who actually does this anyway?) and *completely destroying the ability to view the site* for people stuck on older machines...
You could also use <link> to include but wrap the whole thing in @media screen,projection {} or whatnot. That should work equally well, I suppose, unless there's something that supports @import but not @media or vice versa (both are CSS2).
On 02/04/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well policy-wise I guess it comes down to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick :)
w00h00! Next time someone marks that for deletion, I'll quote this to say it's Brion-quoted policy!
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Monday 02 April 2007 19:36:09 Brion Vibber wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
On 02/04/07, Tels wrote:
I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported. However, that is not my decision to make.
If we stopped supporting outdated, bug-ridden, insecure and incomplete browsers, we'd lose the vast number of users who browse Wikipedia, voluntarily and involuntarily, via Internet Explorer.
Ba-dum ching!
Seriously though, given the choice between a mild aesthetic change for saving web pages to disk in some browsers (who actually does this anyway?)
Me. (good for when you don't have always internet access)
and *completely destroying the ability to view the site* for people stuck on older machines...
Well policy-wise I guess it comes down to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick :)
Of course it'd be *nice* to cleanly work with the save function of more popular browsers, but as long as we're forced to make the choice, not crashing the old-but-hard-to-upgrade minority still gets priority.
It is your choice, of course.
But you haven't answered the question how many of them are. More than 0? :-)
All the best,
Tels
- -- Signed on Mon Apr 2 22:58:45 2007 with key 0x93B84C15. View my photo gallery: http://bloodgate.com/photos PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"Now, _you_ behave!"
Tels wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Seriously though, given the choice between a mild aesthetic change for saving web pages to disk in some browsers (who actually does this anyway?)
Me. (good for when you don't have always internet access)
I thought you were smart enough to know what extra files you need to download to see it with styles. ;)
---
Although normal save of the 'complete page' on IE doesn't save it either, saving to a unique file (its horrible mht) keeps the full CSS.
On 4/2/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Seriously though, given the choice between a mild aesthetic change for saving web pages to disk in some browsers (who actually does this anyway?) and *completely destroying the ability to view the site* for people stuck on older machines...
I would say that saving pages, and saving them correctly, is pretty important. Who does it? People who live in areas of limited connectivity and do not have a printer -- download your articles in an Internet cafe and read them later. People who want to give a presentation in a room without net access and fit files on a USB stick. People who want to edit the files offline for re-use.
I agree, though, that we should not break Netscape 4 if we can avoid it. There are probably still plenty of NS4 users on Sun workstations and the like. For now, the best target for getting this fixed seems to be the Firefox bug that causes it. But if there is another syntax that could be used which avoids the saving problem, _and_ doesn't break NS4, that would be excellent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Moin,
On Monday 02 April 2007 19:07:26 Rob Church wrote:
On 02/04/07, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported. However, that is not my decision to make.
If we stopped supporting outdated, bug-ridden, insecure and incomplete browsers, we'd lose the vast number of users who browse Wikipedia, voluntarily and involuntarily, via Internet Explorer.
Yeah, point taken. But you don't support Netscape 1.0, right? :)
I just find it sad that many people of modern software have to suffer because there a a few unknown numbers of people using really old software.
All the best,
Tels
- -- Signed on Mon Apr 2 22:57:20 2007 with key 0x93B84C15. Get one of my photo posters: http://bloodgate.com/posters PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
"What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law. Right now, any professor can show a complete movie in his classroom without paying a dime - that's fair use. What is not fair use is making a copy of an encrypted DVD, because once you're able to break the encryption, you've undermined the encryption itself."
-- Jack Valenti
Tels wrote:
Yeah, point taken. But you don't support Netscape 1.0, right? :)
I just find it sad that many people of modern software have to suffer because there a a few unknown numbers of people using really old software.
All the best,
Tels
Well, Wikipedia shows nice with Netscape 1.2 (at least as nice as it can be without CSS) Certainly not crashing...
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:07:26PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
On 02/04/07, Tels nospam-abuse@bloodgate.com wrote:
I really don't see how software that outdated, buggy, insecure and incomplete like Netscape 4.0 can even be considered to be supported. However, that is not my decision to make.
If we stopped supporting outdated, bug-ridden, insecure and incomplete browsers, we'd lose the vast number of users who browse Wikipedia, voluntarily and involuntarily, via Internet Explorer.
*Very* nice strawman, there, Rob.
But even *I* wouldn't champion NN4.x these days, and I did for a *very* long time.
Has anyone ever gone through the Browser Archive and pulled screenshots?
Cheers, -- jra
On 4/3/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
Has anyone ever gone through the Browser Archive and pulled screenshots?
I got no joy out of the early Mosaics, sadly. Wikipedia just showed the "we're experiencing technical difficulties" page, every other page I tried failed for one reason or another, mostly asking me to configure a "viewer" to handle the esoteric content type "text/html".
Steve
On 03/04/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
*Very* nice strawman, there, Rob.
I was going for the snide anti-Microsoftism. That's how people get respect in the FOSS community these days, isn't it?
Rob Church
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 03:54:50PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
On 03/04/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
*Very* nice strawman, there, Rob.
I was going for the snide anti-Microsoftism. That's how people get respect in the FOSS community these days, isn't it?
I think you've mispelt "on Slashdot", actually. :-)
Cheers, -- jra
On 05/04/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
I think you've mispelt "on Slashdot", actually. :-)
Oh, touché.
Rob Church
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org