From phyax at mac.com Tue Jan 1 05:55:01 2002 From: phyax at mac.com (Nathan Kelley) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Purchasing OmniWeb Message-ID: <02E7D6BB-FEBF-11D5-8462-00039309293E@mac.com> To Omniweb Users , So it was with joy I discovered one of my credit cards still had $29.95 on it. I immediately punched in store.omnigroup.com into 4.1b1 and made the purchase. OmniWeb is now licensed! Yay! Aside from that great feeling I have from buying the license, I also got a warm feeling from supporting a small, independent software company. No doubt the folks at OmniGroup also got a warm feeling from making some more lucre, which they will wisely invest in their Ferrari collec*cough*further software development =) I also rang my Mom to let her know; she was proud of me =) She pointed out the added bonus of not seeing that annoying panel again, and that I wouldn't need to go to the hospital should Shmop find out my street address. It also happens I got a free upgrade on my Red Rooster meal deal to a larger chips! =) A final thought; with the upcoming 4.1 and sometime after 5.0, I should finally be able to make OmniWeb my full-time browser under MacOS X (it's close, but not quite there yet), rather than suffering under "the competition". The thought of this as I was walking along nearly caused me to stub my big toe, but fortunately I snapped out of it just in time =) Have a happy new year everyone :-) Cheers, Nathan. ________________________________________________ Nathan "Phyax" Kelley email | phyax@runbox.com, phyax@mac.com icq | 4618849 yahoo | phyax ________________________________________________ From bcovey at omnigroup.com Tue Jan 1 15:52:02 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: keyboard script In-Reply-To: <20011229023547.9455@smtp.nifty.com> Message-ID: <711A14A2-FF12-11D5-A9AD-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> Shoichi- Hmmm... What seems to be going on, at least on my machine, is that you set Kotoeri in the keyboard menu, then you click in a text field and it reverts to whatever you had it set to before. Resetting it once more, though, seems to do the trick. I just checked with Rick, and he tells me that, to the best of his knowledge, we don't have anything to do with the behavior of that menu. That said, it's a little strange that (as far as I can tell) OmniWeb is the only app that shows this behavior. I'll keep an eye out for other reports of this sort of thing, but I'm not going to write it up as a bug quite yet. Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group On Friday, December 28, 2001, at 06:35 PM, Shoichi Yamaguchi wrote: > In OW 4.1 beta 1, I cannot change the keyboard script from > Roman to Japanese (Kotoeri) using the keyboard menu. In OW > 4.1 sp, I could do it. > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From shoichi.yamaguchi at nifty.com Tue Jan 1 23:02:02 2002 From: shoichi.yamaguchi at nifty.com (Shoichi Yamaguchi) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: keyboard script In-Reply-To: <711A14A2-FF12-11D5-A9AD-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> References: <711A14A2-FF12-11D5-A9AD-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <20020102054536.9506@smtp.nifty.com> >Hmmm... What seems to be going on, at least on my machine, is that you >set Kotoeri in the keyboard menu, then you click in a text field and it >reverts to whatever you had it set to before. Resetting it once more, >though, seems to do the trick. >I just checked with Rick, and he tells me that, to the best of his >knowledge, we don't have anything to do with the behavior of that menu. >That said, it's a little strange that (as far as I can tell) OmniWeb is >the only app that shows this behavior. I'll keep an eye out for other >reports of this sort of thing, but I'm not going to write it up as a bug >quite yet. Today I have just checked it again, but I could not reproduce the phenomenon. I can change the script today! I keep it in my mind, and report it if I find anything new. From paulk at mac.com Tue Jan 1 23:30:58 2002 From: paulk at mac.com (Paul Kafasis) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020102073007.17594@mail> Brian, Sounds like a cop-out to me ;D No no, excellent, I'll be glad to see it. I noticed another problem while I was working with frames. I use the following code: to make a frame. Again, I could be reading specs wrong, but that fameborder=0 should mean there's no visible border between the two frames. However, OW does in fact draw a border. IE and iCab don't. Am I wrong on this one, or is OW again to blame? Slightly off-topic, but I noticed this. Why is OW the only browser that listens to font sizes?? iCab and IE both automatically bump the font up +2. OW looks gorgoeus, but then I'll test the page in IE, and need to drop font sizes. Any web designers out there care to shed some light on this? I know I can then change the size in IE, but default seems to be +2. -Paul -- Paul Kafasis paulk@mac.com >I've been told that, back in the day when we wrote our table support, >the positioning of the caption wasn't specified. We picked bottom. The >later spec picked top. Thanks for pointing that out; writing it up as a >bug... > >Sincerely, > >Brian Covey >Support Engineer >Omni Group > > >On Monday, December 31, 2001, at 12:21 PM, Paul Kafasis wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure this is a bug, but I may well be wrong. It seems that OW >> doesn't render the element of tables correctly, as defined by >> W3C: >> >> A caption should sit at the top of a table, as a header. However, OW >> puts >> it at the bottom. Am I wrong on this, or is OW screwing it up? >> >> -Paul >> >> -- >> Paul Kafasis >> paulk@mac.com >> >>> When using OW 4.1b1 as my default browser and having 'Open URLs clicked >>> in other applications open in a new browser window', if no Omniweb >>> windows are opened, and a URL is clicked in say Mail.app, two windows >>> are opened. One with the homepage, and the second with the URL clicked. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ===================================================================== >>> Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/ >>> mhaque@haque.net >>> >>> "Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Developer/Project Lead >>> Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://www.themes.org/ >>> batmanppc@themes.org >>> ===================================================================== >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OmniWeb-l mailing list >>> OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com >>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OmniWeb-l mailing list >> OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com >> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > From andang at nmt.edu Wed Jan 2 00:59:00 2002 From: andang at nmt.edu (Andang Kustamsi) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Appearance in Network Activity panel Message-ID: <000b01c1936b$b29ea650$d90f8a81@nmt.edu> Just a small suggestion... I switched my Finder appearance to graphite and the color of the OmniWeb buttons on browser window follows except the one on the Network Activity panel. In fact the same behavior is shown in one of your screenshots http://www.omnigroup.com/images/applications/omniweb/NetActivity.jpg Should they be consistent? Andang From patrick at elixir.ch Wed Jan 2 01:15:00 2002 From: patrick at elixir.ch (Patrick Armbruster) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: <20020102073007.17594@mail> References: <20020102073007.17594@mail> Message-ID: <1009970055.2401.94.camel@localhost.localdomain> Computers today *still* are based on 72 dpi. Somehow Windows forgot that and switched to 96 dpi (or did so from the beginning). Of course, depending on the resolution of your screen (which you can change) your dpi are always different. Neither 72 or 96. But it was 'agreed' upon 72. Now that 'the world' uses 96 dpi in browsers, pages started to look ugly on the Mac, so Microsoft invented 96 dpi browsing on Macintosh. So basically, we're doing it wrong intentionally, because else we get tiny, tiny, tiny fonts on our screens. OW should have a percentage setting like Galeon on Linux. That helps. :) Patrick Am Mit, 2002-01-02 um 06.30 schrieb Paul Kafasis: > Slightly off-topic, but I noticed this. Why is OW the only browser that > listens to font sizes?? iCab and IE both automatically bump the font up > +2. OW looks gorgoeus, but then I'll test the page in IE, and need to > drop font sizes. Any web designers out there care to shed some light on > this? I know I can then change the size in IE, but default seems to be +2. > > > -Paul From len at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 2 03:52:01 2002 From: len at omnigroup.com (Leonard Case) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Appearance in Network Activity panel In-Reply-To: <000b01c1936b$b29ea650$d90f8a81@nmt.edu> Message-ID: <0DEECC5E-FF77-11D5-B4EE-000393075EBE@omnigroup.com> If you are refering to the blue dots on the right, you may notice that they turn red if you get an error. Also, Mail.app uses blue dots for unread messages even when in graphite mode. As I was checking the code for the color meanings, I noticed that while we do have gray dots, we no longer use them for anything (as I recall they were used for 'not currently processing' but it appears we don't show any dots for that case anymore). I suppose we could switch to gray and red when in graphite... --Len On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 12:58 AM, Andang Kustamsi wrote: > Just a small suggestion... > > I switched my Finder appearance to graphite and the color of the OmniWeb > buttons on browser window follows except the one on the Network Activity > panel. > > In fact the same behavior is shown in one of your screenshots > http://www.omnigroup.com/images/applications/omniweb/NetActivity.jpg > > Should they be consistent? > > Andang From david at gwenhiver.net Wed Jan 2 04:30:57 2002 From: david at gwenhiver.net (David Martin) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Appearance in Network Activity panel In-Reply-To: <0DEECC5E-FF77-11D5-B4EE-000393075EBE@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <81B8C080-FF7C-11D5-8641-0030657BE5C2@gwenhiver.net> On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 12:51 , Leonard Case wrote: > If you are refering to the blue dots on the right, you may notice that > they turn red if you get an error. No, I think Andang is refering to the "Stop" button, which appears red in the Network Activity panel, though it is graphite in the Downloads window. > On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 12:58 AM, Andang Kustamsi wrote: > >> Just a small suggestion... >> >> I switched my Finder appearance to graphite and the color of the >> OmniWeb >> buttons on browser window follows except the one on the Network >> Activity >> panel. >> >> In fact the same behavior is shown in one of your screenshots >> http://www.omnigroup.com/images/applications/omniweb/NetActivity.jpg >> >> Should they be consistent? From quinon at yhb.att.ne.jp Wed Jan 2 05:24:01 2002 From: quinon at yhb.att.ne.jp (Kino) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Font substitution does not work properly with 4.1 beta Message-ID: OW 4.1 beta does not display correctly a page in utf-8: which has been rendered properly by OW 4.0.6 or earlier. For example, the initial D with underdot (0x1E0C) in

??kn? et l?Empereur 1

is displayed using LastResort font* even if a font containing this character such as TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode MS or Thryomanes is selected in OW's Font & Color Preferences. [ * Mail.app displays this ? in LastResort if a font containing this character is not selected in Fonts & Color Preferences.] TITUS Cyberbit Basic and Arial Unicode MS are single style fonts and Thryomanes is provided with Regular and Italic styles only. None of them has Bold style. The page in question does not specify the font and OW uses Helvetica Bold -- why? -- to render

??kn? et l?Empereur 1

. And as Helvetica does not contain 0x1E0C, OW 4.0.6 uses one of those multi-range Unicode fonts to render this character whereas OW 4.1 beta does not like to use a different font and displays it in LastResort. Note that, with OW 4.0.6, it is not necessary to select a multi-range Unicode font in Font & Color Preferences. OW 4.0.6 tries to find a font containing the missing glyph before resigning itself to the LastResort. So Font substitution seems to work fine with OW 4.0.6. Of course, a mixture of different fonts/styles in a single word is not beautiful, but the readability is more important than the nice look, isn't it? Personally I'd like to have more detailed options in Font Preferences though. Curiously, OW 4.1 beta displays the page in question properly, in the same way as OW 4.0.6 if OW 4.1 beta opens the page immediately after OW 4.0.6 opened it. I don't know if this has something to do with History or not. Yusuke Kinoshita From andang at nmt.edu Wed Jan 2 05:33:00 2002 From: andang at nmt.edu (Andang Kustamsi) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Appearance in Network Activity panel In-Reply-To: <0DEECC5E-FF77-11D5-B4EE-000393075EBE@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Leonard Case wrote: What I meant was the red Stop button on the bottom right. The Stop button on the browser window changes to gray when I switch to graphite appearance. Andang From andang at nmt.edu Wed Jan 2 05:48:00 2002 From: andang at nmt.edu (Andang Kustamsi) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Appearance in Network Activity panel In-Reply-To: <0DEECC5E-FF77-11D5-B4EE-000393075EBE@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: After doing some checking on the Mail UI I think the behavior on the OmniWeb's Network Activity panel is the correct one. The Stop button on the browser window should not change to gray when user switches to graphite appearance so the color is red. Andang From egburton at clearwaterpeace.org Wed Jan 2 06:12:01 2002 From: egburton at clearwaterpeace.org (Edward (Ted) Burton) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: RulebookServer In-Reply-To: <20020102054536.9506@smtp.nifty.com> References: <711A14A2-FF12-11D5-A9AD-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> <20020102054536.9506@smtp.nifty.com> Message-ID: OmniWeb cramped itself and for once the whole 'puter to a grinding halt yesterday, Console showing an endless list of some sort of request and the result shown that it was unable to connect to the "RulebookServer". This ate the CPU time to the extent that nothing else would work other than that I could successfully quit the other apps that were running from the keyboard, but not a menu. Then I could not get option-command-escape to launch the force quitter routine for a long time until it finally came up, but I could not use it. Finally I used the three finger salute, fsck'd twice, and we were back in business. Then I launched OmniWeb again, it took many, many bounces (very unusual) and has been normal since. What the heck is that RulebookServer? -- From worman at gseis.ucla.edu Wed Jan 2 08:37:00 2002 From: worman at gseis.ucla.edu (Timothy Worman) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: staggered placement of items in downloads In-Reply-To: <200201012003.MAA19496@lists> Message-ID: I've been noticing this in the sp's and in the beta. Does the "Downloads" list display some downloads at the top of the list and some at the bottom of the list? Is there any logic to why some are at the bottom of the list. It's actually really annoying when they move to the bottom. I often cannot see the progress of a download without manipulating the window controls. From dhampson at pullman.com Wed Jan 2 10:08:01 2002 From: dhampson at pullman.com (David Hampson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C955EAC-FFAB-11D5-849E-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> > > On Tuesday, January 1, 2002, at 11:30 PM, Paul Kafasis wrote: > >> Slightly off-topic, but I noticed this. Why is OW the only browser that >> listens to font sizes?? iCab and IE both automatically bump the font up >> +2. OW looks gorgoeus, but then I'll test the page in IE, and need to >> drop font sizes. Any web designers out there care to shed some light on >> this? I know I can then change the size in IE, but default seems to be >> +2. >> >> >> -Paul >> >> -- >> Paul Kafasis >> paulk@mac.com >> > > Actually, in my opinion, OW is the only one that does NOT listen to font sizes. Both IE and Mozilla have a place for entering the resolution of my monitor. So, when a 12 point font is declared, The fonts are 12 points tall (12/72, or 1/6 an inch. aka 1 pica) Omniweb has no way of knowing that my monitor has a resolution of 114 dpi. 12 point fonts in these browsers are (12/72)*114 = 19 pixels tall. I can measure them with a ruler. If Omni assumed my monitor had 72 dpi (which Macs used to always assume back in the days of the 72dpi dot-matrix printers) then a 12 point font would correspond to 12 pixels height. I believe Omni assumes 96 dpi, (which is what Windows assumed, and is much closer to the average monitor resolution) This means a 12 point font is (12/72)*96 = 16 pixels tall, which seems more more like what I am getting. Omni does such a poor job with style sheets though, its hard for me to properly test it. btw, it appears that Opera makes a similar assumption, which is odd since they pride themselves on being so standards compliant. -Dave "One of the main advantages of Unix over, say, MVS, is the tremendous number of features Unix lacks." -- Chris Torek -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1819 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20020102/874cca78/attachment.bin From rft at vrvis.at Wed Jan 2 10:25:59 2002 From: rft at vrvis.at (Robert F Tobler) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Licensing Problem with 4.1b4 In-Reply-To: <200201012003.MAA19532@lists> Message-ID: <22482C94-FFAE-11D5-9E3F-00039344B02E@vrvis.at> Since yesterday, January 1st, my OmniWeb 4.1b4 copy insists (in the licensing panel) that there is "No License Available", even though my license is listed. After deleting and reentering the license, things seemed to be OK again, but after the first restart, the same problem appeared. I hope you can fix this problem in the next beta. Greetings, Robert F. Tobler rft@vrvis.at -- Robert F. Tobler www.vrvis.at -- VRVis Research Center From patrick at elixir.ch Wed Jan 2 10:28:01 2002 From: patrick at elixir.ch (Patrick Armbruster) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: <8C955EAC-FFAB-11D5-849E-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> Message-ID: <558D6DE4-FFAE-11D5-8C60-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> Hehe :) No, this has NOTHING to do with printers. :) Back then (1984, 85, ...) Mac monitors actually *were* 72 DPI screens. This of course changed with the first multisync monitors, where you - while changing the resolution - also adjust the DPI of your monitor. But 72 DPI is still the way the system measures its screen. And no, if you define a font as 12 px in a stylesheet, IE does *not* make it 16 px high on your whatever DPI screen. It will be 12 px high, of course, because we're doing bitmap there. OmniWeb still does a poor job with CSS and we all know that, but the 72 DPI do not derive from 72 DPI printers but from screens. I guess OmniWeb uses the system settings for font sizes in its rendering engine. Am Mittwoch den, 2. Januar 2002, um 19:07, schrieb David Hampson: > If Omni assumed my monitor had 72 dpi (which Macs used to always > assume back in the days of the 72dpi dot-matrix printers) then a 12 point > font would correspond to 12 pixels height. I believe Omni assumes 96 dpi, > (which is what Windows assumed, and is much closer to the average > monitor resolution) This means a 12 point font is (12/72)*96 = 16 > pixels tall, which seems more more like what I am getting. > > Omni does such a poor job with style sheets though, its hard for me > to properly test it. From paulk at mac.com Wed Jan 2 10:40:59 2002 From: paulk at mac.com (Paul Kafasis) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: <558D6DE4-FFAE-11D5-8C60-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> References: <558D6DE4-FFAE-11D5-8C60-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> Message-ID: <20020102184025.15257@mail> Patrick, This is not what I'm seeing. When I load the Style Sheet with a set font size of say, 12. The text, when copied into Appleworks for example is size 12 from Omniweb. Form IE, and iCab, it's size 16. -Paul -- Paul Kafasis paulk@mac.com >Hehe :) > >No, this has NOTHING to do with printers. :) Back then (1984, 85, ...) Mac >monitors actually *were* 72 DPI screens. This of course changed with the >first multisync monitors, where you - while changing the resolution - also >adjust the DPI of your monitor. But 72 DPI is still the way the system >measures its screen. And no, if you define a font as 12 px in a stylesheet, > IE does *not* make it 16 px high on your whatever DPI screen. It will be >12 px high, of course, because we're doing bitmap there. OmniWeb still >does a poor job with CSS and we all know that, but the 72 DPI do not >derive from 72 DPI printers but from screens. > >I guess OmniWeb uses the system settings for font sizes in its rendering >engine. > >Am Mittwoch den, 2. Januar 2002, um 19:07, schrieb David Hampson: > >> If Omni assumed my monitor had 72 dpi (which Macs used to always >> assume back in the days of the 72dpi dot-matrix printers) then a 12 point >> font would correspond to 12 pixels height. I believe Omni assumes 96 dpi, >> (which is what Windows assumed, and is much closer to the average >> monitor resolution) This means a 12 point font is (12/72)*96 = 16 >> pixels tall, which seems more more like what I am getting. >> >> Omni does such a poor job with style sheets though, its hard for me >> to properly test it. > >_______________________________________________ >OmniWeb-l mailing list >OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com >http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From rft at vrvis.at Wed Jan 2 11:12:01 2002 From: rft at vrvis.at (Robert F Tobler) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Licensing Problem with *4.1b1* (not *4.1b4*, there is no such thing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <84002A60-FFB4-11D5-9E3F-00039344B02E@vrvis.at> On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 07:49 PM, Jake Robb wrote: > 4.1b4? I wasn't aware of anything more recent than b1. I've checked the > sneakypeek and archive directories. What am I missing? Nothing. Just a Typo, of course I meant 4.1b1. rft@vrvis.at -- Robert F. Tobler www.vrvis.at -- VRVis Research Center From dhampson at pullman.com Wed Jan 2 11:50:01 2002 From: dhampson at pullman.com (David Hampson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: <20020102184025.15257@mail> Message-ID: On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 10:40 AM, Paul Kafasis wrote: > > This is not what I'm seeing. When I load the Style Sheet with a set font > size of say, 12. The text, when copied into Appleworks for example is > size 12 from Omniweb. Form IE, and iCab, it's size 16. > > > -Paul > > -- > Paul Kafasis > paulk@mac.com Well, I think that IE is expanding the font size, so that you get a true 12 pts. when displayed on the monitor. (This may mean telling the OS to create a 16 pt font) If you get out your ruler and measure the size of the font on the monitor, it will be the correct size in true points. Omni doesn't bother with any of that processing, and keeps the 12 point font. Unfortunately, whether is a quartz bug or Omni bug in don't know, but the true displayed size is less that 12 points. If you print from both IE and Omni, you will find the fonts are the same size (I hope, I haven't done this test myself!) Printers are usually very capable of displaying a 12 point font as 12 points in size. AppleWorks only concerns itself with the printed page. A 12 point font can be almost any size on the monitor, but will print true. IE, Mozilla, and iCab were meant for the Monitor, and adjust the size of the font so that 12 point fonts will display itself as 12 points in size. I do not know what these browsers do for printing, but I'm sure they print as the original 12 points. Since IE expands the font for the monitor, when you cut and paste, the size of the font is the size of the displayed font, 16 points. Tell IE that you monitor resolution is 124, then when you cut and paste to AppleWorks, it should be something like (12/72)*124 = 20.6667 points. Probably rounded. -Dave "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will meanwhile agree to meet them halfway." -- Bernard Avishai p.s. I just tested this, my 114 dpi monitor. IE copies the 10 point font to AppleWorks as 16 points. (11/72)*114 = 17.4167. My 30 point font, (30/ 72)*114 = 47.5 goes to AppleWorks as a 48 point font, just like my theory predicted. :-) From tjw at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 2 13:02:00 2002 From: tjw at omnigroup.com (Timothy J. Wood) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Live Connect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The SVG chart demo is a good example: http://www.adobe.com/svg/demos/chart.html -tim On Monday, December 31, 2001, at 01:08 AM, Tim Orme wrote: > Thanks very much for that Tim. > > As a test could you give me the URL of a site that needs Live Connect > to work properly? > > Thanks in advance. > > Tim. > > On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 04:39 pm, Timothy J. Wood wrote: > >> >> In Terminal: >> >> defaults write com.omnigroup.OmniWeb OJLiveConnectEnabled YES >> >> (and then again with 'NO' to turn it back off) >> >> With this turned on, a bunch of the Adobe SVG example pages work and >> some other LiveConnect cases I've been able to find. Any other >> examples (especially of stuff that doesn't work :) would be great. >> >> -tim >> >> >> On Sunday, December 30, 2001, at 08:27 AM, Tim Orme wrote: >> >>> OmniWeb 4.1 beta 1 (v332) >>> In the release notes it states that there is "experimental" support >>> for Live Connect but that it is off by default. Does anyone know how >>> to turn Live Connect on? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Tim. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OmniWeb-l mailing list >>> OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com >>> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l >> >> >> From bahlberg at mac.com Wed Jan 2 13:17:07 2002 From: bahlberg at mac.com (Bo Ahlberg) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Crashing Issues with OW 4.1b1 Message-ID: I?m getting frequent crashes (for which the crash reports don?t make it far enough to get out by email) from several sites. The most prevalent site for these crashes is www.macfora.com. Symptoms: OW 4.1b1 (after something like 4 to 5 crashes a day... this sequence seems related) 1. Initial indicator of a pending crash is a ?delayed? link ? this is where when a link if clicked OW pauses like it has not received the click event message. By moving the Mouse the event seems to get recognized and the link is processed. The pause is not an actual wait period, rather it is more like a freeze in that the wait period is determined by the time before mouse motion. 2. Next Link click is responded to fairly quickly, however window draw is slow with an extended beach ball time. 3. With a fairly high level of consistency the next link clicked will cause a crash of OW. The time frame and activity leading up to this sequence of events seems to be variable enough that I cannot place any specific steps or issues on it. My experience has ranged from a near instant Crash to hours of connectivity without issue. I?ve had the same crash behavior from other sites... However the one listed above is the most consistent. System config: PowerBook G3/500 512M RAM ? 18G (8G Free) Mac OS 10.1.2 Major Apps installed: Office X Corel Graphics Suite for X Netscape for X AIM for X Solscape Typical Co-Run environment for OW Entourage X iTunes SetiAtHome SetiDock (Application version) Frequent Co-Run Applications Word X Excel X Explorer 5.1 (Some apps don?t seem to want to listen to the Internet Settings....) Bo... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20020102/c6c1bab3/attachment.html From stephen at ju-ju.com Wed Jan 2 13:36:03 2002 From: stephen at ju-ju.com (Stephen Chu) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: sp23: Odd character in Address field; Find command finds nothing Message-ID: <981AA656-FFC8-11D5-9BCB-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> Go to After the page is loaded, click in the address field in toolbar then click at any blank space in the page. Note the lightning symbol in the address field is overlaid with a letter E. Also in the same page, using Find command doesn't return any result. Even with text string plainly visible in the page, like "CompUSA". From lcroft at mac.com Wed Jan 2 13:54:02 2002 From: lcroft at mac.com (Lara) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: OmniWeb-l digest, Vol 1 #332 - 18 msgs In-Reply-To: <200201022003.MAA26034@lists> Message-ID: <43D52448-FFCB-11D5-8C79-003065C49B24@mac.com> I am currently developing, or rather putting the finishing touches on a database program which uses file maker pro and uses a browser as the front end. This works perfectly in IE, and it mostly works in Omni Web b1...the only problem is that the java in Omni will not update the information until the final result page, making it not possible to adjust prices, customer information or jobs. Would be way cool if my company was able to utilize OW and buy a few licenses at the same time. ;o) -L From dhampson at pullman.com Wed Jan 2 14:30:58 2002 From: dhampson at pullman.com (David Hampson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5FDE7E3A-FFD0-11D5-8AD8-0050E4D98D78@pullman.com> > > p.s. I just tested this, my 114 dpi monitor. IE copies the 10 point > font to AppleWorks as 16 points. (11/72)*114 = 17.4167. My 30 point > font, (30/ > 72)*114 = 47.5 goes to AppleWorks as a 48 point font, just like my theory > predicted. :-) > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > > Oops, an error in the math, my 10 did go to AppleWorks as 16. (10/72)*114 = 15.8333. Previously, I used (11/72)*114.......... The results are even better. "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson From crusader_x at mac.com Wed Jan 2 15:25:00 2002 From: crusader_x at mac.com (Erick King) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Question about downloading OW. Message-ID: Some friends of mine on IOMUG's mailing list, are having difficulties downloading OW. They are in the UK and are using an ISP named Blueyonder. The question is, are the download problems due to being outside the US or is it a problem with their ISP. Anyone got answers/opinions? Thanks. Erick From plessard at mac.com Wed Jan 2 16:29:01 2002 From: plessard at mac.com (Pascal Lessard) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:27 2005 Subject: Question about downloading OW. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Erick King a ?crit, le 02/01/2002 : >Some friends of mine on IOMUG's mailing list, are having >difficulties downloading OW. They are in the UK and are using an >ISP named Blueyonder. The question is, are the download problems >due to being outside the US or is it a problem with their ISP. > >Anyone got answers/opinions? Certainly their ISP. I sure don't have any problem from here (Canada) and it doesn't seem to be a problem from France or Switzerland either (I've never seen complaints on French speaking sites like Macplus.net and Macgeneration.com). -- Yours, Pascal Lessard From bcovey at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 2 17:23:01 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Licensing Problem with 4.1b4 In-Reply-To: <22482C94-FFAE-11D5-9E3F-00039344B02E@vrvis.at> Message-ID: <4A0B1467-FFE8-11D5-B491-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> Is your machine on a network, and are other copies of OmniWeb running on that network? Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 10:25 AM, Robert F Tobler wrote: > Since yesterday, January 1st, my OmniWeb 4.1b4 copy > insists (in the licensing panel) that there is > "No License Available", even though my license is > listed. After deleting and reentering the license, > things seemed to be OK again, but after the first > restart, the same problem appeared. > > I hope you can fix this problem in the next beta. > > Greetings, > Robert F. Tobler > > rft@vrvis.at -- Robert F. Tobler > www.vrvis.at -- VRVis Research Center From rft at vrvis.at Wed Jan 2 17:40:59 2002 From: rft at vrvis.at (Robert F Tobler) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Licensing Problem with 4.1b4 In-Reply-To: <4A0B1467-FFE8-11D5-B491-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: I'm connected to a cable-modem via an airport base station doing dhcp/NAT. I don't think OmniWeb can find other copies through the cable-modem, even if there were any. Sincerely, Robert F. Tobler rft@vrvis.at -- Robert F. Tobler www.vrvis.at -- VRVis Research Center On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 02:22 AM, Brian Covey wrote: > Is your machine on a network, and are other copies of OmniWeb running on > that network? > On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 10:25 AM, Robert F Tobler wrote: >> Since yesterday, January 1st, my OmniWeb 4.1b4 copy >> insists (in the licensing panel) that there is >> "No License Available", even though my license is >> listed. After deleting and reentering the license, >> things seemed to be OK again, but after the first >> restart, the same problem appeared. From fsckd at mac.com Wed Jan 2 19:18:01 2002 From: fsckd at mac.com (E. Jordan Bojar) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: CSS and Georgia Message-ID: <5E4F4384-FFF8-11D5-9519-00039351647C@mac.com> I'm wondering if anyone else has this problem: If I disable font substitution, pages set to render in Verdana do so, but pages set to render in Georgia do not. Has anyone else seen this? -- E. Jordan Bojar http://www.fsckd.com From robb8350 at ionline.com Wed Jan 2 19:38:01 2002 From: robb8350 at ionline.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp23: Odd character in Address field; Find command finds nothing In-Reply-To: <981AA656-FFC8-11D5-9BCB-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> Message-ID: Stephen Chu wrote: > Go to After the page is loaded, click in the > address field in toolbar then click at any blank space in the page. Note > the lightning symbol in the address field is overlaid with a letter E. > > Also in the same page, using Find command doesn't return any result. > Even with text string plainly visible in the page, like "CompUSA". I can verify the Find error, but the address field character doesn't show up on my machine. Also, the Find error appears to apply to more than just CompUSA.com. -Jake From robb8350 at ionline.com Wed Jan 2 20:20:01 2002 From: robb8350 at ionline.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Feature request for future version Message-ID: I've got a feature request. I love the history feature. I just happen to love IE's a little bit more. I'd like to be able to sort global history chronologically. Often I have no idea the address of a site I visited recently, and hence sorting by host doesn't do me much good. But I usually know approximately how long ago I visited the site. The host sorting is nice too, on occasion, so I'm thinking a selection somewhere to choose which sort would be appropriate (with a default sort selector in preferences). -Jake From bcovey at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 2 21:19:00 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Font substitution does not work properly with 4.1 beta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <48EDD733-0009-11D6-B89A-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> Ok... Behavior on this bug is even stranger. I now cannot duplicate what I saw, but something weird is going on here, and I'd appreciate it if someone out there can try to duplicate this, so I know I'm not insane. OmniWeb 4.1b1, with the Code2001 font () installed and set up as default proportional font in Display preferences. Went to the page kino mentions in his message: The first couple of times I loaded this page, whether in OmniWeb 4.1 or 4.0.6, I saw the D+underdot character rendered with the Code2001 glyph. I am sure of this. At some point in my futzing around, I switched the default font in OmniWeb to "Brush Script MT". At that point the page started rendering all the D+underdot characters in the LastResort font. () From this point on, even after I switched the default font back to Code2001, we would always render the D+underdot characters on that page in the LastResort glyph. Even after a reboot. Which seems to match Kino's behavior, except I have never seen the two versions of OmniWeb get out of synch; either they both rendered it, or they both didn't. So, someone out there with too much time on his or her hands want to try to duplicate this sequence of events? Install the code2001 font, and make it the default OmniWeb display font. Go to Are you seeing the d+underdots rendered in code2001? Now switch the default to a font that doesn't have a bold typeface and reload the page; glyph should now render in LastResort. If you switch the default back to Code2001 and reload the page yet again, is it still rendering in LastResort? Or am I completely off my rocker? Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 05:23 AM, Kino wrote: > OW 4.1 beta does not display correctly a page in utf-8: > > which has been rendered properly by OW 4.0.6 or earlier. > > For example, the initial D with underdot (0x1E0C) in

??kn? et > l?Empereur 1

is displayed using LastResort font* even if a font > containing this character such as TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Arial Unicode > MS or Thryomanes is selected in OW's Font & Color Preferences. > > [ * Mail.app displays this ? in LastResort if a font containing this > character is not selected in Fonts & Color Preferences.] > > TITUS Cyberbit Basic and Arial Unicode MS are single style fonts and > Thryomanes is provided with Regular and Italic styles only. None of > them has Bold style. The page in question does not specify the font and > OW uses Helvetica Bold -- why? -- to render

??kn? et l?Empereur > 1

. And as Helvetica does not contain 0x1E0C, OW 4.0.6 uses one of > those multi-range Unicode fonts to render this character whereas OW 4.1 > beta does not like to use a different font and displays it in > LastResort. Note that, with OW 4.0.6, it is not necessary to select a > multi-range Unicode font in Font & Color Preferences. OW 4.0.6 tries to > find a font containing the missing glyph before resigning itself to the > LastResort. So Font substitution seems to work fine with OW 4.0.6. > > Of course, a mixture of different fonts/styles in a single word is not > beautiful, but the readability is more important than the nice look, > isn't it? Personally I'd like to have more detailed options in Font > Preferences though. > > Curiously, OW 4.1 beta displays the page in question properly, in the > same way as OW 4.0.6 if OW 4.1 beta opens the page immediately after OW > 4.0.6 opened it. I don't know if this has something to do with History > or not. > > Yusuke Kinoshita > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From bcovey at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 2 21:37:01 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: RulebookServer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: According to Ken, the rulebook server is part of the OS. Specifically, it's part of the OS that's involved in figuring out which glyphs go with which unicode characters and which fonts support those glyphs. Let me know if the bug is reproducible, not that I want you rebooting your machine all day... Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 06:11 AM, Edward (Ted) Burton wrote: > OmniWeb cramped itself and for once the whole 'puter to a grinding halt > yesterday, Console showing an endless list of some sort of request and > the result shown that it was unable to connect to the "RulebookServer". > This ate the CPU time to the extent that nothing else would work other > than that I could successfully quit the other apps that were running > from the keyboard, but not a menu. Then I could not get > option-command-escape to launch the force quitter routine for a long > time until it finally came up, but I could not use it. Finally I used > the three finger salute, fsck'd twice, and we were back in business. > Then I launched OmniWeb again, it took many, many bounces (very > unusual) and has been normal since. > > What the heck is that RulebookServer? > -- _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From bcovey at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 2 21:38:01 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: staggered placement of items in downloads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've got that bug written up, and we're working on figuring out what's up with that. Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 08:36 AM, Timothy Worman wrote: > I've been noticing this in the sp's and in the beta. Does the > "Downloads" list display some downloads at the top of the list and some > at the bottom of the list? Is there any logic to why some are at the > bottom of the list. It's actually really annoying when they move to the > bottom. I often cannot see the progress of a download without > manipulating the window controls. > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From bcovey at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 2 21:55:01 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Crashing Issues with OW 4.1b1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <60986DD3-000E-11D6-B89A-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> Bo- We're very interested in tracking down and fixing any memory leaks or problems you may have. We've never seen this, but we'd love to track it down and fix it! The next time this happens, it would be quite helpful if you could send us the output of a "sample" command, so the lead developer can try to determine what OmniWeb is doing. To do this, look up the process id for the OmniWeb process (using "top" or "ps" or whatever other command-line tool you prefer), then run sample for fifteen seconds using a command of the form "sample [pid] 15", e.g. "sample 12345 15" (assuming OmniWeb's process id is 12345). Sample will do its analysis for 15 seconds (or whatever number you plug in), then write a file in /tmp (it will tell you where). You can open this file with "open -e /tmp/.OmniWeb*", and then drag it (using the icon in the TextEdit title bar) to a compose window in Mail to attach it to a message to me; I'll forward it on to Ken, and we'll see if we can determine what's up. Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 01:16 PM, Bo Ahlberg wrote: > I?m getting frequent crashes (for which the crash reports don?t make it > far enough to get out by email) from several sites. The most prevalent > site for these crashes is www.macfora.com. > > Symptoms: ?OW 4.1b1 (after something like 4 to 5 crashes a day... this > sequence seems related) > 1. Initial indicator of a pending crash is a ?delayed? link ? this is > where when a link if clicked OW pauses like it has not received the > click event message. By moving the Mouse the event seems to get > recognized and the link is processed. The pause is not an actual wait > period, rather it is ?more like a freeze in that the wait period is > determined by the time before mouse motion. > > 2. Next Link click is responded to fairly quickly, however window draw > is slow with an extended beach ball time. > > 3. With a fairly high level of consistency the next link clicked will > cause a crash of OW. > > The time frame and activity leading up to this sequence of events seems > to be variable enough that I cannot place any specific steps or issues > on it. My experience has ranged from a near instant Crash to hours of > connectivity without issue. I?ve had the same crash behavior from other > sites... However the one listed above is the most consistent. > > System config: > PowerBook G3/500 512M RAM ? 18G (8G Free) > Mac OS 10.1.2 > Major Apps installed: > Office X > Corel Graphics Suite for X > Netscape for X > AIM for X > Solscape > > Typical Co-Run environment for OW > Entourage X > iTunes > SetiAtHome > SetiDock (Application version) > > Frequent Co-Run Applications > Word X > Excel X > Explorer 5.1 (Some apps don?t seem to want to listen to the Internet > Settings....) > > Bo... From bcovey at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 2 21:58:14 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp23: Odd character in Address field; Find command finds nothing In-Reply-To: <981AA656-FFC8-11D5-9BCB-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> Message-ID: I wasn't able to duplicate the first part of your bug; clicking in the address field and then on blank spots on the page didn't seem to overlay anything into the address field. That said, we have an open bug that should cover the second phenomenon that you're seeing. Somewhere along the way, our text searching stopped dealing well with Frames; we plan to get that fixed, though I can't offer you a specific timeframe. Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 01:35 PM, Stephen Chu wrote: > Go to After the page is loaded, click in the > address field in toolbar then click at any blank space in the page. > Note the lightning symbol in the address field is overlaid with a > letter E. > > Also in the same page, using Find command doesn't return any result. > Even with text string plainly visible in the page, like "CompUSA". From bcovey at omnigroup.com Wed Jan 2 22:19:00 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Question about downloading OW. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Erick- We've gotten reports of some of the upstream providers in Europe having hosed their DNS servers and misreporting planetmirror.com as an unknown address within the last couple of weeks; it's not outside the realm of possibility that those are still kicking around in nooks and crannies on the net, but that was several weeks ago, so it would be a little strange. That said, they can always try grabbing the file from their iDisk, or from our ftp servers. Though that latter method tends to be fairly slow (and somewhat deliberately so; we'd rather offload as much as possible of the download traffic to organizations that have much much fatter pipes than we do, and have the ftp server available when needed.). Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 03:24 PM, Erick King wrote: > > Some friends of mine on IOMUG's mailing list, are having difficulties > downloading OW. They are in the UK and are using an ISP named > Blueyonder. The question is, are the download problems due to being > outside the US or is it a problem with their ISP. > > Anyone got answers/opinions? > > Thanks. > > Erick > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From eugene at anime.net Wed Jan 2 23:23:01 2002 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: <1009970055.2401.94.camel@localhost.localdomain>; from patrick@elixir.ch on Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 10:14:14AM -0100 References: <20020102073007.17594@mail> <1009970055.2401.94.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20020102232209.B1403@sasami.anime.net> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 10:14:14AM -0100, Patrick Armbruster wrote: : : Computers today *still* are based on 72 dpi. No, but the print world standardizes on 72 dpi, so they chose to make computer screens match the real-life proportions of paper. : Somehow Windows forgot that : and switched to 96 dpi (or did so from the beginning). Windoze has been doing 96 dpi from the beginning. This seems to be a VGA thing, but no one really knows for sure. Anyways, M$ somehow got the W3C to make this the standard in things like CSS (look for the parts where it explains that its reference pixel is based on a 96 dpi device). The rest is history. : Of course, : depending on the resolution of your screen (which you can change) your : dpi are always different. Neither 72 or 96. But it was 'agreed' upon 72. : Now that 'the world' uses 96 dpi in browsers, pages started to look ugly : on the Mac, so Microsoft invented 96 dpi browsing on Macintosh. : : So basically, we're doing it wrong intentionally, because else we get : tiny, tiny, tiny fonts on our screens. But since 96 dpi is the standard for CSS, are you suggesting that OmniWeb should violate official web standards? -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From eugene at anime.net Wed Jan 2 23:26:00 2002 From: eugene at anime.net (Eugene Lee) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: bigger/smaller text and frames Message-ID: <20020102232516.C1403@sasami.anime.net> On a web page that uses frames, increasing or decreasing the font size of the text doesn't work, even if a specific frame is selected. Bug or feature? :) -- Eugene Lee eugene@anime.net From phil.dobbin at btinternet.com Thu Jan 3 04:17:01 2002 From: phil.dobbin at btinternet.com (Phil Dobbin) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: RulebookServer Message-ID: <20020103121539-r01010800-a21ed9ef-0920-0108@62.7.82.51> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:11:37 -0800, "Edward (Ted) Burton" wrote: >OmniWeb cramped itself and for once the whole 'puter to a grinding >halt yesterday, Console showing an endless list of some sort of >request and the result shown that it was unable to connect to the >"RulebookServer". This ate the CPU time to the extent that nothing >else would work other than that I could successfully quit the other >apps that were running from the keyboard, but not a menu. Then I >could not get option-command-escape to launch the force quitter >routine for a long time until it finally came up, but I could not use >it. Finally I used the three finger salute, fsck'd twice, and we were >back in business. Then I launched OmniWeb again, it took many, many >bounces (very unusual) and has been normal since. > >What the heck is that RulebookServer? I get "cannot connect to pbs object 'RulebookServer'" at most logins (this is with very few or no login in items and definitely nothing to do with OmniWeb). I've Googled the heck out of this Console message but to no avail. It seems to be something to do with the ISSO settings but in my case the messages cause no ill effects. Sorry this message isn't more informative but if you do find anything out, please let me know. It's driving me nuts ;-) Regards, Phil. -- Phil Dobbin phil.dobbin@btinternet.com PGP fingerprint: E433 0BBB 29BD 67ED BD19 B453 827A 9FD8 DB40 41E3 This key can be verified at: http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 -- From bcovey at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 3 04:42:00 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Sneakypeek 24 (and release notes!) are up. Message-ID: <277B4126-0047-11D6-BAFD-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> This one has something for everyone, I tell you. Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group From nextstep at h2.dion.ne.jp Thu Jan 3 05:10:58 2002 From: nextstep at h2.dion.ne.jp (Kazu Kimura) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 repeated bug in Japanese Message-ID: <2E5B2BB0-004B-11D6-B92E-0030657E9E34@h2.dion.ne.jp> Omnigroup, With sp24, there is the bug in the past again when it renders Japanese character as below. (Top half of second line disappears. When I make the font smaller with command + "-", it is ok.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pastedGraphic.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 4880 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20020103/9f8b025a/pastedGraphic.tiff -------------- next part -------------- Regards, Kazu From patrick at elixir.ch Thu Jan 3 05:40:58 2002 From: patrick at elixir.ch (Patrick Armbruster) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Sneakypeek 24 (and release notes!) are up. In-Reply-To: <277B4126-0047-11D6-BAFD-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <6D3A52EE-004F-11D6-8C60-003065F9C274@elixir.ch> Telnet Links are working. So glad. So fine. :) Patrick From stephen at ju-ju.com Thu Jan 3 06:20:14 2002 From: stephen at ju-ju.com (Stephen Chu) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp23: Odd character in Address field; Find command finds nothing In-Reply-To: <981AA656-FFC8-11D5-9BCB-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> Message-ID: Hmm... I can't reproduce the first one either now. Odd. Must be one of the new year glitches. :) The other very annoying thing regarding this site is the vertical scroll bars are often missed in about all the pages. I have to set compatibility to Netscape 4.75 (Mac OS) to make the scroll bar in www.compusa.com to appear. But even so, clicking at some of the links like Advertised Specials still renders a new page without vertical scroll bar. And reloading the page doesn't make it appear. But going back then forward brings it back. This is tested with the new sp24. I really wish I don't have to "lie" about my choice of browser. :) On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 04:35 PM, Stephen Chu wrote: > Go to After the page is loaded, click in the > address field in toolbar then click at any blank space in the page. > Note the lightning symbol in the address field is overlaid with a > letter E. > > Also in the same page, using Find command doesn't return any result. > Even with text string plainly visible in the page, like "CompUSA". > From crasmen at magic.fr Thu Jan 3 06:29:02 2002 From: crasmen at magic.fr (Corentin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Cras=2DM=E9neur?=) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Sneakypeek 24 (and release notes!) are up. Message-ID: At 4:41 -0800 3/01/02, Brian Covey wrote: >This one has something for everyone, I tell you. Not for me :-\ (;-)) ) I still have the same problem with Javascript. I activated the JavaScript debugger in OW and here is what it said: JavaScript interpreter for document at http://www.infobiogen.fr/srs/ function getUserName() { var form = document.forms[0] if (1==1) { var userId = prompt('Enter your SRS user name:','') var form = document.forms[0] if (userId) { form.permUserId.value = userId form.submit() } } else { form.permUserId.value = 'PERM' form.action = "/srs6binp/cgi-bin/wgetz" form.submit() } } [no result] Corentin From david at gwenhiver.net Thu Jan 3 06:50:01 2002 From: david at gwenhiver.net (David Martin) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Sharing bookmarks between IE and OW Message-ID: <195D659E-0059-11D6-87D4-0030657BE5C2@gwenhiver.net> From sp24's release notes: > Write out our bookmarks in an IE-compatible format, so people can share > the same bookmarks file between OmniWeb and IE. Not exactly, since menu separator's seems to be written as a "-" in IE, and as a blank bookmark in OW. An example will be worth a lot of text. I just copied my Favorites.html file to the Application Support/OmniWeb/ folder (renaming it Bookmarks.html) and all separators appear as "-" in OmniWeb. The same if I Import Bookmarks? from the adequate menu item. David From stephen at ju-ju.com Thu Jan 3 06:57:02 2002 From: stephen at ju-ju.com (Stephen Chu) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 repeated bug in Japanese In-Reply-To: <2E5B2BB0-004B-11D6-B92E-0030657E9E34@h2.dion.ne.jp> Message-ID: <17D0A258-005A-11D6-AD6C-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> I am seeing the same thing with Chinese text in tables. Compare the rendering of this page: in sp23 and sp24 and you can see all the Chinese characters are positioned and clipped wrong vertically. This is when using the default Lucida Grande Regular or any Latin fonts. Actually, only Unicode (like Arial Unicode MS) or Traditional Chinese fonts (like Apple LiSong Light) render the text properly. It seems the new font substitution is causing this. On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 08:09 AM, Kazu Kimura wrote: > Omnigroup, > > With sp24, there is the bug in the past again when it renders Japanese > character as below. (Top half of second line disappears. When I make > the font smaller with command + "-", it is ok.) > > > > > Regards, > Kazu > From stephen at ju-ju.com Thu Jan 3 07:01:59 2002 From: stephen at ju-ju.com (Stephen Chu) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 repeated bug in Japanese In-Reply-To: <17D0A258-005A-11D6-AD6C-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 09:56 AM, Stephen Chu wrote: > I am seeing the same thing with Chinese text in tables. > > Compare the rendering of this page: in > sp23 and sp24 and you can see all the Chinese characters are positioned > and clipped wrong vertically. > > This is when using the default Lucida Grande Regular or any Latin > fonts. Actually, only Unicode (like Arial Unicode MS) or Traditional > Chinese fonts (like Apple LiSong Light) render the text properly. It > seems the new font substitution is causing this. I said that too soon. Even with Arial Unicode MS or Apple LiSong Light, it's still wrong... From stephen at ju-ju.com Thu Jan 3 07:09:04 2002 From: stephen at ju-ju.com (Stephen Chu) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 repeated bug in Japanese In-Reply-To: <17D0A258-005A-11D6-AD6C-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> Message-ID: Here's a simple file that demonstrates the problem: On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 09:56 AM, Stephen Chu wrote: > I am seeing the same thing with Chinese text in tables. > > Compare the rendering of this page: in > sp23 and sp24 and you can see all the Chinese characters are positioned > and clipped wrong vertically. > > This is when using the default Lucida Grande Regular or any Latin > fonts. Actually, only Unicode (like Arial Unicode MS) or Traditional > Chinese fonts (like Apple LiSong Light) render the text properly. It > seems the new font substitution is causing this. > > On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 08:09 AM, Kazu Kimura wrote: > >> Omnigroup, >> >> With sp24, there is the bug in the past again when it renders Japanese >> character as below. (Top half of second line disappears. When I make >> the font smaller with command + "-", it is ok.) >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Kazu >> > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > From quinon at yhb.att.ne.jp Thu Jan 3 07:28:00 2002 From: quinon at yhb.att.ne.jp (Kino) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Font substitution does not work properly with 4.1 beta In-Reply-To: <48EDD733-0009-11D6-B89A-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <58A30F3C-005E-11D6-A59C-000502C86510@yhb.att.ne.jp> On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 02:18 PM, Brian Covey wrote: > Ok... > Behavior on this bug is even stranger. I now cannot duplicate what I > saw, but something weird is going on here, and I'd appreciate it if > someone out there can try to duplicate this, so I know I'm not > insane. > > OmniWeb 4.1b1, with the Code2001 font > () installed and set up > as default proportional font in Display preferences. > > Went to the page kino mentions in his message: > > > The first couple of times I loaded this page, whether in OmniWeb 4.1 > or 4.0.6, I saw the D+underdot character rendered with the Code2001 > glyph. I am sure of this. You mean Code 2000? My copy of Code 2001 (Version 0.913) does not have D with underdot (0x1E0C). Or a new version is available? Anyway personally I prefer TITUS Cyberbit Basic or Thryomanes. > At some point in my futzing around, I switched the default font in > OmniWeb to > "Brush Script MT". At that point the page started rendering all the > D+underdot characters in the LastResort font. > () > > From this point on, even after I switched the default font back to > Code2001, we would always render the D+underdot characters on that > page in the LastResort glyph. Even after a reboot. Which seems to > match Kino's behavior, except I have never seen the two versions of > OmniWeb get out of synch; either they both rendered it, or they both > didn't. Today, I cannot reproduce the difference between the rendering of OW 4.0.6 and that of OW 4.1 sp. 24. This makes me crazy because I had tested and confirmed this during a week repeatedly before I posted the previous message. Has this something to do with the fonts installed in my Mac? I add or remove fonts frequently... > So, someone out there with too much time on his or her hands want to > try to duplicate this sequence of events? > > Install the code2001 font, and make it the default OmniWeb display > font. > Go to iyanag/articles/dakini/dakini1.html> > Are you seeing the d+underdots rendered in code2001? > > Now switch the default to a font that doesn't have a bold typeface > and reload the page; glyph should now render in LastResort. > > If you switch the default back to Code2001 and reload the page yet > again, is it still rendering in LastResort? Yes. It seems that quitting and restarting OW is needed. One more mystery. If you have a font which contains D with underdot in Bold style installed in your Mac, OW renders the character almost correctly, even if Times and Monaco are selected in OW's Font Prefereces. I say almost correctly because the style is not respected for uncommon characters which are not contained in the preferred font, so, for example, n with underdot in Regular style in some passage is rendered in Italic style. Is this normal with Font substitution? Yusuke Kinoshita From paulk at mac.com Thu Jan 3 08:04:00 2002 From: paulk at mac.com (Paul Kafasis) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: <20020103120118.U5235@khan.acc.umu.se> References: <20020103120118.U5235@khan.acc.umu.se> Message-ID: <20020103160247.25893@mail> David, No, check your w3c specs. NORESIZE, alone, is the correct method. So Brian, others, my question remains: why is OW showing a border when I have: -Paul -- Paul Kafasis paulk@mac.com >On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 02:30:07AM -0500, Paul Kafasis wrote: >> Brian, >> Sounds like a cop-out to me ;D No no, excellent, I'll be glad to see it. >> I noticed another problem while I was working with frames. I use the >> following code: >> >> > marginheight="10" scrolling="auto" frameborder=0 noresize> > >Ehrm, no, that should be > >marginheight="10" scrolling="auto" frameborder="0" noresize="noresize"> > >(I took this off the list...) > > >Regards: David Weinehall > _ _ > // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ >// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // >\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ ; from paulk@mac.com on Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:02:47AM -0500 References: <20020103120118.U5235@khan.acc.umu.se> <20020103160247.25893@mail> Message-ID: <20020103173515.X5235@khan.acc.umu.se> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:02:47AM -0500, Paul Kafasis wrote: > David, > No, check your w3c specs. NORESIZE, alone, is the correct method. > > So Brian, others, my question remains: why is OW showing a border when I > have: > > marginheight="10" scrolling="auto" frameborder=0 noresize> Yes, you are correct; I'm thinking of XHTML, where you must quote and where no attribute minimization is allowed. However, while your version works in an SGML-parser only, using noresize="noresize" works in both SGML- and XML-parsers (given that they are correctly implemented, of course.) Hence, my version should be the preferred one. I have, as of yet, not come upon a browser where the full version does not work, even though the HTML spec warns that only the minimized form might be supported by some user agents. But when it comes to quoting values, using quotes for all values is definitely the way to go; From tao at acc.umu.se Thu Jan 3 08:36:04 2002 From: tao at acc.umu.se (David Weinehall) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: <20020103160247.25893@mail>; from paulk@mac.com on Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:02:47AM -0500 References: <20020103120118.U5235@khan.acc.umu.se> <20020103160247.25893@mail> Message-ID: <20020103173515.X5235@khan.acc.umu.se> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:02:47AM -0500, Paul Kafasis wrote: > David, > No, check your w3c specs. NORESIZE, alone, is the correct method. > > So Brian, others, my question remains: why is OW showing a border when I > have: > > marginheight="10" scrolling="auto" frameborder=0 noresize> Yes, you are correct; I'm thinking of XHTML, where you must quote and where no attribute minimization is allowed. However, while your version works in an SGML-parser only, using noresize="noresize" works in both SGML- and XML-parsers (given that they are correctly implemented, of course.) Hence, my version should be the preferred one. I have, as of yet, not come upon a browser where the full version does not work, even though the HTML spec warns that only the minimized form might be supported by some user agents. But when it comes to quoting values, using quotes for all values is definitely the way to go; From kc at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 3 10:47:03 2002 From: kc at omnigroup.com (Ken Case) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 repeated bug in Japanese In-Reply-To: <2E5B2BB0-004B-11D6-B92E-0030657E9E34@h2.dion.ne.jp> Message-ID: <27C6A2EF-007A-11D6-99E4-003065A0E444@omnigroup.com> Thanks for the bug report! We'll fix it. Ken On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 05:09 , Kazu Kimura wrote: > Omnigroup, > > With sp24, there is the bug in the past again when it renders Japanese > character as below. (Top half of second line disappears. When I make > the font smaller with command + "-", it is ok.) > > Regards, > Kazu From quinon at yhb.att.ne.jp Thu Jan 3 10:48:03 2002 From: quinon at yhb.att.ne.jp (Kino) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Font substitution does not work properly with 4.1 beta In-Reply-To: <58A30F3C-005E-11D6-A59C-000502C86510@yhb.att.ne.jp> Message-ID: <583492DC-007A-11D6-BC4E-000502C86510@yhb.att.ne.jp> On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 12:27 AM, Kino wrote: > One more mystery. If you have a font which contains D with underdot > in Bold style installed in your Mac, OW renders the character almost > correctly, even if Times and Monaco are selected in OW's Font > Prefereces. Oup! I forgot to mention the name of the font "which contains D with underdot in Bold style". This is George Williams' Caslon: The package contains font files in Roman, Italic, Bold and Small Caps. Unfortunately this experimental font looks too thin. Yusuke KInoshita From pixelcort at mac.com Thu Jan 3 11:34:02 2002 From: pixelcort at mac.com (Cortland Haws) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Feature request for future version In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There is space for a checkbox next to the search box in Global History Pane. Sounds like a good idea. On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 08:17 PM, Jake Robb wrote: > I've got a feature request. > > I love the history feature. I just happen to love IE's a little bit > more. > I'd like to be able to sort global history chronologically. Often I > have no > idea the address of a site I visited recently, and hence sorting by host > doesn't do me much good. But I usually know approximately how long > ago I > visited the site. > > The host sorting is nice too, on occasion, so I'm thinking a selection > somewhere to choose which sort would be appropriate (with a default sort > selector in preferences). > > -Jake > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > > -- Cortland Haws Delphi Design Center pixelcort@mac.com From pixelcort at mac.com Thu Jan 3 11:54:08 2002 From: pixelcort at mac.com (Cortland Haws) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Table Caption, Another HTML Bug? In-Reply-To: <20020103160247.25893@mail> Message-ID: <891C4D28-0083-11D6-A9F7-003065E94F22@mac.com> This depends on if you are using XHTML or HTML 4.01. An attribute w/o a value is okay in SGML, but not in XML. In xml, it should be noresize="noresize", but in sgml, it should be NORESIZE. On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 08:02 AM, Paul Kafasis wrote: > David, > No, check your w3c specs. NORESIZE, alone, is the correct method. > > So Brian, others, my question remains: why is OW showing a border > when I > have: > > marginheight="10" scrolling="auto" frameborder=0 noresize> > > -Paul > > -- > Paul Kafasis > paulk@mac.com > -- Cortland Haws Delphi Design Center pixelcort@mac.com From theg4cubepro at mac.com Thu Jan 3 13:05:01 2002 From: theg4cubepro at mac.com (Jeremy Lavergne) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 mailto links no longer working Message-ID: <6E7943B2-008D-11D6-94D8-00039345AA60@mac.com> The mailto links at all the sites I have tested are not working in the new sp24. ? Jeremy Lavergne Webmaster, The Rehab Center and Clear Fork Academic Boosters http://homepage.mac.com/theg4cubepro/ From leehinde at mac.com Thu Jan 3 13:19:03 2002 From: leehinde at mac.com (Lee Hinde) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 mailto links no longer working In-Reply-To: <6E7943B2-008D-11D6-94D8-00039345AA60@mac.com> Message-ID: Fwiw, I just tested this on our site and it works fine. on 1/3/02 1:04 PM, Jeremy Lavergne at theg4cubepro@mac.com wrote: > The mailto links at all the sites I have tested are not working in the > new sp24. > -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lee Hinde leehinde@hdind.com HD Industries (916) 648-0400 Sacramento, California http://www.hdind.com/ From theg4cubepro at mac.com Thu Jan 3 13:21:05 2002 From: theg4cubepro at mac.com (Jeremy Lavergne) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 mailto links no longer working In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Must be me then :) Let me check some more, but it didn't work at The Rehab Center, nor my school's site... On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 04:18 PM, Lee Hinde wrote: > Fwiw, I just tested this on our site and it works fine. > > on 1/3/02 1:04 PM, Jeremy Lavergne at theg4cubepro@mac.com wrote: > >> The mailto links at all the sites I have tested are not working in the >> new sp24. >> > > -- > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > Lee Hinde leehinde@hdind.com > HD Industries (916) 648-0400 > Sacramento, California http://www.hdind.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > ? Jeremy Lavergne Webmaster, The Rehab Center and Clear Fork Academic Boosters http://homepage.mac.com/theg4cubepro/ From bcovey at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 3 13:45:02 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Font substitution does not work properly with 4.1 beta In-Reply-To: <58A30F3C-005E-11D6-A59C-000502C86510@yhb.att.ne.jp> Message-ID: <0D5ADEC8-0093-11D6-AA35-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> This is the root of my problem. Never mind, all. I'd switched from Code2000 to Code2001, and didn't really pay attention to the difference between the two. Silly, Silly me. Repeat to self: "Always look for horses before looking for zebras. 99% of the time, it's the user's fault." =) Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 07:27 AM, Kino wrote: > You mean Code 2000? My copy of Code 2001 (Version 0.913) does not have > D with underdot (0x1E0C). From bkeyport at qwest.net Thu Jan 3 14:25:01 2002 From: bkeyport at qwest.net (bkeyport@qwest.net) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: space between toolbar(s) and HTML Message-ID: hey guys, here's a real odd one, i'm using SP24 - and I adjusted the toolbar to make more sense to me (and purely by accident, found the page address on it's own line thing) now, I have a space between the toolbars and actual HTML, as shown: Thanks! -- From theg4cubepro at mac.com Thu Jan 3 14:33:25 2002 From: theg4cubepro at mac.com (Jeremy Lavergne) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Image Maps Applied Through JavaScript Message-ID: Apparently, OmniWeb doesn't support Image Maps that are loaded from JavaScript...example of this would be: http://www.jblakeharris.info/ This would be nice for those of us that don't have servers that are operating PHP or SSIs, and don't want to use HTML frames... I realize this may have to do with the JavaScript not being fully compliant / invoked yet, but could this be on the priority list for it? ? Jeremy Lavergne Webmaster, The Rehab Center and Clear Fork Academic Boosters http://homepage.mac.com/theg4cubepro/ From manny at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 3 14:49:00 2002 From: manny at omnigroup.com (manny@omnigroup.com) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Apple invite: Connect: Pro2Pro Message-ID: <0681DA7E-009C-11D6-A037-00050237CCE1@omnigroup.com> If you are interested in web publishing and are attending Macworld, SF, Apple has asked us to extend this invitation for Connect: Pro2Pro to you. We will be showing folks how they can use OmniWeb and OmniGraffle as valuable tools for web publishing on Mac OS X. Our very own tech support stud Brian Covey will be attending. Brian will be accepting face-to-face/in person bug reports and feature requests. Go Brian! :) Thanks! Manny From theg4cubepro at mac.com Thu Jan 3 14:55:01 2002 From: theg4cubepro at mac.com (Jeremy Lavergne) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Followup: sp24 mailto links not working Message-ID: Oops...false alarm...Mail was on the fritz for some reason. Quit it and the links opened up fine. ? Jeremy Lavergne Webmaster, The Rehab Center and Clear Fork Academic Boosters http://homepage.mac.com/theg4cubepro/ From manny at omnigroup.com Thu Jan 3 15:03:01 2002 From: manny at omnigroup.com (manny@omnigroup.com) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Apple invite: Connect: Pro2Pro In-Reply-To: <0681DA7E-009C-11D6-A037-00050237CCE1@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: Here's the invite. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pro2pro.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 22929 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20020103/5ecf3132/pro2pro.jpg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20020103/5ecf3132/pro2pro.html -------------- next part -------------- > If you are interested in web publishing and are attending Macworld, SF, > Apple has asked us to extend this invitation for Connect: Pro2Pro to > you. We will be showing folks how they can use OmniWeb and OmniGraffle > as valuable tools for web publishing on Mac OS X. > > Our very own tech support stud Brian Covey will be attending. Brian > will be accepting face-to-face/in person bug reports and feature > requests. Go Brian! :) > > Thanks! > > Manny > > > > _______________________________________________ > OmniGraffle-Users mailing list > OmniGraffle-Users@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omnigraffle-users > The Omni Group 206-523-4152 ext. 290 manny@omnigroup.com From bkeyport at qwest.net Thu Jan 3 15:15:04 2002 From: bkeyport at qwest.net (bkeyport@qwest.net) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: space between toolbar(s) and HTML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >hey guys, > >here's a real odd one, i'm using SP24 - and I adjusted the toolbar >to make more sense to me (and purely by accident, found the page >address on it's own line thing) > >now, I have a space between the toolbars and actual HTML, as shown: > > >Thanks! > >-- >_______________________________________________ >OmniWeb-l mailing list >OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com >http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l Odd, the file didn't send through. ;( Anyway, the space is around 1/4 inch. -- From plessard at mac.com Thu Jan 3 18:10:59 2002 From: plessard at mac.com (Pascal Lessard) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: space between toolbar(s) and HTML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bkeyport@qwest.net a ?crit, le 03/01/2002 : >>here's a real odd one, i'm using SP24 - and I adjusted the toolbar >>to make more sense to me (and purely by accident, found the page >>address on it's own line thing) >> >>now, I have a space between the toolbars and actual HTML, as shown: >Anyway, the space is around 1/4 inch. Let me guess : the "Favorites" bar suddenly appeared, but you don't use it! Since there are no bookmarks in the "Favorites" folder of your bookmark.html document, it appears as a 5 mm white strip accross the top of the page, under the toolbar. I know, this is how I accidentaly rediscovered this folder!!! ;-) -- Yours, Pascal Lessard From bkeyport at qwest.net Thu Jan 3 18:48:00 2002 From: bkeyport at qwest.net (bkeyport@qwest.net) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: space between toolbar(s) and HTML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >bkeyport@qwest.net a ?crit, le 03/01/2002 : > >>>here's a real odd one, i'm using SP24 - and I adjusted the toolbar >>>to make more sense to me (and purely by accident, found the page >>>address on it's own line thing) >>> >>>now, I have a space between the toolbars and actual HTML, as shown: > >>Anyway, the space is around 1/4 inch. > > Let me guess : the "Favorites" bar suddenly appeared, but you >don't use it! Since there are no bookmarks in the "Favorites" folder >of your bookmark.html document, it appears as a 5 mm white strip >accross the top of the page, under the toolbar. I know, this is how >I accidentaly rediscovered this folder!!! ;-) I can assume that's it. I can drag URLs to it and they'll stick. How can I get rid of the thing? :) -- From phil.dobbin at btinternet.com Thu Jan 3 19:19:01 2002 From: phil.dobbin at btinternet.com (Phil Dobbin) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: OW 4.1b1 Message-ID: <20020104031815-r01010800-498aa288-0920-0108@213.1.84.35> Just a quick thank you. 4.1b1 looks (and works, from here) like an absolute dream (have just replaced 4.0.5). The GUI and the faultless installation make up for some minor quibbles (Remember Netscape 4.x.x. people...). Looking forward to the alpha then the final release. Thanks, guys and gals :) Regards, Phil. -- Phil Dobbin phil.dobbin@btinternet.com PGP fingerprint: E433 0BBB 29BD 67ED BD19 B453 827A 9FD8 DB40 41E3 This key can be verified at: http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 -- From plessard at mac.com Thu Jan 3 20:34:00 2002 From: plessard at mac.com (Pascal Lessard) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: space between toolbar(s) and HTML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bkeyport@qwest.net a ?crit, le 03/01/2002 : >>>>here's a real odd one, i'm using SP24 - and I adjusted the >>>>toolbar to make more sense to me (and purely by accident, found >>>>the page address on it's own line thing) >>>> >>>>now, I have a space between the toolbars and actual HTML, as shown: >> >>>Anyway, the space is around 1/4 inch. >> >> Let me guess : the "Favorites" bar suddenly appeared, but you >>don't use it! Since there are no bookmarks in the "Favorites" >>folder of your bookmark.html document, it appears as a 5 mm white >>strip accross the top of the page, under the toolbar. I know, this >>is how I accidentaly rediscovered this folder!!! ;-) > >I can assume that's it. I can drag URLs to it and they'll stick. How >can I get rid of the thing? :) Simple : type Option-Command-F... or follow this menu path : "Browser:Browser Toolbars:Hide Favorites Bar" -- Yours, Pascal Lessard From dredd at megacity.org Fri Jan 4 00:35:00 2002 From: dredd at megacity.org (Derek J. Balling) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Keychain error Message-ID: I still get errors in sp24 trying to save passwords to my keychain. Is that going to get fixed any time soon? :-/ D -- +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | dredd@megacity.org | "Thou art the ruins of the noblest man | | Derek J. Balling | That ever lived in the tide of times. | | | Woe to the hand that shed this costly | | | blood" - Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1 | +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+ From fsckd at mac.com Fri Jan 4 04:27:01 2002 From: fsckd at mac.com (E. Jordan Bojar) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: View Source & XHTML Message-ID: <4F71EB13-010E-11D6-B020-00039351647C@mac.com> A quick note on 4.1 in general: The source editor should probably be adjusted not to highlight as an error self-closing tags, such as
, which are required in XHTML 1.0. -- E. Jordan Bojar http://www.fsckd.com From listmail at pedantic.com Fri Jan 4 08:00:01 2002 From: listmail at pedantic.com (Magn0lia) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Keychain error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <50554A14-012A-11D6-8FF8-000393011A74@pedantic.com> On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 12:34 , Derek J. Balling wrote: > I still get errors in sp24 trying to save passwords to my keychain. > > Is that going to get fixed any time soon? :-/ Are you sure it's not a problem with your keychain? I haven't seen a problem in OW myself but I have seen my keychain get confused several times and refuse to accept new passwords. If you open Keychain Access, does it show just one keychain for you, unlocked, in the default location? magn0lia -- "Oh, great altar of passive entertainment ... bestow upon me thy discordant images at such speed as to render linear thought impossible!" Calvin, 13-Oct-1990 From dredd at megacity.org Fri Jan 4 08:25:26 2002 From: dredd at megacity.org (Derek J. Balling) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: Keychain error In-Reply-To: <50554A14-012A-11D6-8FF8-000393011A74@pedantic.com> References: <50554A14-012A-11D6-8FF8-000393011A74@pedantic.com> Message-ID: At 7:47 AM -0800 1/4/02, Magn0lia wrote: >On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 12:34 , Derek J. Balling wrote: >>I still get errors in sp24 trying to save passwords to my keychain. >> >>Is that going to get fixed any time soon? :-/ > >Are you sure it's not a problem with your keychain? I haven't seen a >problem in OW myself but I have seen my keychain get confused >several times and refuse to accept new passwords. If you open >Keychain Access, does it show just one keychain for you, unlocked, >in the default location? Yup. It shows the keychain that all my other apps are happily tinkering with. :-/ D -- +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | dredd@megacity.org | "Thou art the ruins of the noblest man | | Derek J. Balling | That ever lived in the tide of times. | | | Woe to the hand that shed this costly | | | blood" - Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1 | +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+ From robb8350 at ionline.com Fri Jan 4 09:27:36 2002 From: robb8350 at ionline.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: OW using WAY too much RAM Message-ID: Okay, I'm downloading 4.1sp24 right now... I'll let everyone know if this remains a problem. OW 4.1b1 right now is stuck on a spinning disc cursor. My first explanation for this is described by this line from top: COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE OmniWeb 0.6% 1:42:05 49 424 2435 113M 170M 260M 533M I've got 768MB of RAM. Those numbers seem like they've gotten a bit high, especially considering that I only have seven browser windows open (one loading a page, one I was entering text into a text field, five completely idle). Let me know what I can do to help investigate this. -Jake From kc at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 4 09:37:00 2002 From: kc at omnigroup.com (Ken Case) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 repeated bug in Japanese In-Reply-To: <27C6A2EF-007A-11D6-99E4-003065A0E444@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <854F7734-0139-11D6-9756-003065DFF51C@omnigroup.com> On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:46 AM, Ken Case wrote: > Thanks for the bug report! We'll fix it. The clipped text problem is fixed in sp25, available now. (We'll post full release notes soon.) Ken From kc at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 4 09:47:01 2002 From: kc at omnigroup.com (Ken Case) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: OW using WAY too much RAM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0BC87566-013B-11D6-9756-003065DFF51C@omnigroup.com> The spinning disc cursor is due to a deadlock (perhaps the one between JavaScript and cookies which we already know about and are working on fixing, but perhaps one we don't know about), not memory use. VSIZE is how much memory we have defined, but it doesn't actually indicate how much memory we're using. (It's mostly zero-filled unmapped unused regions.) The RSIZE number indicates the amount of real pages which is allocated, but in this case most of that (170MB) are shared with other processes (i.e., they're mostly read-only maps of shared libraries, plug-ins, etc.). The number which measures private memory allocated by OmniWeb is RPRVT, and with in active use with 7 browser windows open 113MB isn't unreasonable. If you flush your cache (or wait five minutes for things in the RAM cache to expire), it may drop more, and as you close windows you should see it continue to drop with each one. Hope this explanation helps! Ken On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 09:24 AM, Jake Robb wrote: > Okay, I'm downloading 4.1sp24 right now... I'll let everyone know if > this > remains a problem. > > OW 4.1b1 right now is stuck on a spinning disc cursor. My first > explanation > for this is described by this line from top: > > COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE > OmniWeb 0.6% 1:42:05 49 424 2435 113M 170M 260M 533M > > I've got 768MB of RAM. Those numbers seem like they've gotten a bit > high, > especially considering that I only have seven browser windows open (one > loading a page, one I was entering text into a text field, five > completely > idle). > > Let me know what I can do to help investigate this. > > -Jake > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > From stephen at ju-ju.com Fri Jan 4 10:02:59 2002 From: stephen at ju-ju.com (Stephen Chu) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp24 repeated bug in Japanese In-Reply-To: <854F7734-0139-11D6-9756-003065DFF51C@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: <39921638-013D-11D6-85CD-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> Yes. I confirm it's fixed. At lease with Chinese text here. On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 12:36 PM, Ken Case wrote: > On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:46 AM, Ken Case wrote: >> Thanks for the bug report! We'll fix it. > > The clipped text problem is fixed in sp25, available now. > > (We'll post full release notes soon.) > > Ken > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > From stephen at ju-ju.com Fri Jan 4 10:15:59 2002 From: stephen at ju-ju.com (Stephen Chu) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp25: High CPU usage even after page loaded and window closed Message-ID: <089FEEB3-013F-11D6-85CD-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> Go to The site will load slowly and OW will consume some 60% of CPU while loading the page. After the page is loaded, OW still uses the same CPU time. Even after the window is closed, it's still taking the same 40% to 60% CPU time. This is without enabling Java in the preferences. From jspectre at lords.com Fri Jan 4 10:57:00 2002 From: jspectre at lords.com (johnathan spectre) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: OW using WAY too much RAM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020104185617.GA28284@bertha.jspectre.dyndns.org> One thing I'll say is if you are used to applications in OS X having OS 9 sized memory partitions you need to rethink things. Applications under X suck up a lot more RAM due to all the extra bells, whistles and graphics of X. Windows cost a lot more in RAM usage and CPU time to draw, don't think Aqua comes cheap. 100M of RAM for OmniWeb to render a few web pages beautifully is nothing. Think Netscape 4.x would render them as well in 1/2 the memory and not bug? Let's add in the advanced features of OW and that it's not some 1/2 baked "carbon" app. Unix as well handles memory far different than OS 9, which is a good thing, right? A lot more libraries, shared memory usage, better virtual memory handling, etc. Anyway, for people unfamiliar with unix in general and are just playing with top, vmstat, or any of the countless memory monitors please remember you are using a whole new operating system underneath. MacOS X itself requires a lot more than the 128M Apple "suggests" for best performance. IMHO you should have no less than 256M, better off with 512M or 1G of RAM and RM is pretty cheap these days... To the OmniWeb crew, keep up the good work. You have to be the only development group I know of to offer so many "sneaky peeks" to the general public and I hope the feedback you're getting from us is useful. I've participated in many beta programs over the years and I'm liking your un-offical beta test the best. -js From stephen at ju-ju.com Fri Jan 4 11:15:06 2002 From: stephen at ju-ju.com (Stephen Chu) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp25: Badly rendered page Message-ID: <345E5726-0147-11D6-85CD-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> All the text in the left and top side bars are rendered with opaque background. Making the graphics look so bad. From calemany at itas.mala.bc.ca Fri Jan 4 12:04:01 2002 From: calemany at itas.mala.bc.ca (Chris Alemany) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: almost hooray: SP25 and www.bmo.com Message-ID: <202C9C9A-014E-11D6-9CD0-00039301E918@itas.mala.bc.ca> ok, now I'm confused... I went to www.bmo.com and signed into the Online banking. I got very excited because when I put in my info, it actually logged me and I saw the initial page for my Online Banking system. Unfortunately when I click on any of the links... the website spits back an error (the same error I used to get right after entering my initial information to sign in) weird... so apparently this site still doesn't work. Progress is good though! At least I can see the front page now! :) As an example I click on a link to my Accounts page that calls from the initial Welcome screen: javascript:top.icon.goFor(18); and the website spits back: Your session has expired or you have not properly signed into the system. During your session, pages which you have used, may be stored in memory. To clear this memory, either exit your browser or clear your cache. oh well... it was a nice thought! Chris ------------------------------------------------- Chris Alemany Computer & Educational Technician I.T.A.S. Program Malaspina University-College Nanaimo, BC, Canada calemany@itas.mala.bc.ca ICQ#:23149880 MSN:c_alemany@hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1353 bytes Desc: not available Url : /mailman/archive/omniweb-l/attachments/20020104/fb03004b/attachment.bin From kc at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 4 12:16:00 2002 From: kc at omnigroup.com (Ken Case) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: sp25: High CPU usage even after page loaded and window closed In-Reply-To: <089FEEB3-013F-11D6-85CD-003065BBD24E@ju-ju.com> Message-ID: Thanks, I've fixed this for sp26 (coming sometime in the next five hours). Ken On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 10:15 , Stephen Chu wrote: > Go to > > The site will load slowly and OW will consume some 60% of CPU while > loading the page. After the page is loaded, OW still uses the same CPU > time. Even after the window is closed, it's still taking the same 40% > to 60% CPU time. > > This is without enabling Java in the preferences. From ritch at mac.com Fri Jan 4 12:17:02 2002 From: ritch at mac.com (Tom Ritch) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:28 2005 Subject: slowdown in page drawing Message-ID: Since installing sp25, pages become very slow to draw after a few pages have been opened. It becomes worse and worse as more pages are opened. Quitting then restarting OW solves the problem. A guess is that this is a bad memory leak. I have not seen this slowdown with earlier sps. I saw the problem at Apple Support Discussions. After I opened about 10 pages I noticed the slowdown. I reproduced the problem with these pages but have not investigated any other site. Tom From aron at r8ix.com Fri Jan 4 12:28:01 2002 From: aron at r8ix.com (Aron S. Spencer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: CPU usage up... Message-ID: <71271A1A-0151-11D6-A762-003065DBBDE6@r8ix.com> sp25, look at Omniweb!: 29756 SecurityAg 0.0% 0:03.12 2 88 110 2.22M 11.1M 4.29M 73.0M 27636 writeconfi 0.0% 0:00.34 1 21 17 472K 380K 1.36M 1.66M 27408 System Pre 0.0% 0:10.97 6 125 169 4.72M 12.1M 8.22M 79.8M 14833 iTunes 0.6% 19:43:41 10 142 232 10.0M 15.6M 15.5M 86.6M 11463 Mail 0.0% 1:52:00 12 180 289 14.6M 18.2M 21.1M 98.3M 11361 top 15.8% 0:14.62 1 14 15 368K 360K 604K 1.45M 11355 tcsh 0.0% 0:00.20 1 16 15 464K 688K 932K 5.72M 11352 Terminal 1.9% 0:06.56 4 68 257 2.63M 14.8M 9.50M 80.1M 10981 QuickTime 5.0% 58:09.01 6 104 143 4.61M 13.6M 8.10M 80.4M 10042 OmniWeb 73.0% 36:55.50 29 166 611 23.8M+ 22.8M 34.3M+ 112M+ 4254 Jar Launch 0.0% 3:52.02 2 53 63 512K 6.64M 1.09M 61.3M 4004 TruBlueEnv 0.0% 30:19.21 16 208 328 22.0M 12.6M 32.1M 1.06G 3858 Sherlock 1.2% 10:16:45 6 92 150 4.96M 13.6M 9.45M 78.4M 2278 Quick Cont 0.0% 0:01.44 2 65 81 1.27M 9.50M 2.27M 71.8M 2276 Quick Day 0.0% 0:00.71 2 66 80 1.25M 9.41M 2.16M 70.1M Aron S. Spencer Irvine, CA, 92612 From pixelcort at mac.com Fri Jan 4 12:29:00 2002 From: pixelcort at mac.com (Cortland Haws) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: slowdown in page drawing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <879CE86B-0151-11D6-BDA7-003065E94F22@mac.com> Biggie: Speed up page renders. Load the source document into the screen /before/ loading images and other content. With internet connections ranging from 22.8 k to 10 Mb AirPort, I can't stand waiting for things.95% of the time, I am more interested in getting the html parsed and displayed then the images coming up first. (Open OW, go to www.apple.com, and the images will come up first then the actual text much of the time. On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 12:16 PM, Tom Ritch wrote: > Since installing sp25, pages become very slow to draw after a few > pages have been opened. It becomes worse and worse as more pages are > opened. Quitting then restarting OW solves the problem. A guess is > that this is a bad memory leak. I have not seen this slowdown with > earlier sps. I saw the problem at Apple Support Discussions. After I > opened about 10 pages I noticed the slowdown. I reproduced the problem > with these pages but have not investigated any other site. > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l > > -- Cortland Haws Delphi Design Center pixelcort@mac.com From aron at r8ix.com Fri Jan 4 12:38:00 2002 From: aron at r8ix.com (Aron S. Spencer) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Washington Mutual Online Banking Message-ID: Still doesn't work in sp25. Aron S. Spencer Irvine, CA, 92612 From kc at omnigroup.com Fri Jan 4 12:58:42 2002 From: kc at omnigroup.com (Ken Case) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Keychain error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 08:10 , Derek J. Balling wrote: > Keychain not updated > Omniweb was unable to store the password in your > keychain. The keychain manager provided this cryptic > error code: "-25299" Ah! I just looked up the cryptic error code in question in the Keychain developer documentation, and it turns out the problem is that OmniWeb only knows how to add keychain items, not update them--and apparently there's already an item in your keychain which matches the site in question, it just has the wrong password. We're fixing the bug, but in the meantime you can workaround it by removing the old item with the wrong password from your keychain. Ken From dredd at megacity.org Fri Jan 4 13:49:01 2002 From: dredd at megacity.org (Derek J. Balling) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Keychain error In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:57 PM -0800 1/4/02, Ken Case wrote: >I just looked up the cryptic error code in question in the Keychain >developer documentation, and it turns out the problem is that >OmniWeb only knows how to add keychain items, not update them--and >apparently there's already an item in your keychain which matches >the site in question, it just has the wrong password. Correct, the password changes on a frequent basis. >We're fixing the bug, but in the meantime you can workaround it by >removing the old item with the wrong password from your keychain. Cool. :) Thanks for getting it done! D -- +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | dredd@megacity.org | "Thou art the ruins of the noblest man | | Derek J. Balling | That ever lived in the tide of times. | | | Woe to the hand that shed this costly | | | blood" - Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1 | +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+ From robb8350 at ionline.com Fri Jan 4 17:36:00 2002 From: robb8350 at ionline.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? Message-ID: In my last post about OW using too much RAM, I posted OW's line from top. I just noticed that, at that point, there were 49 threads running for the seven browsers. I'll remind everyone that five of those browsers were completely idle, in the background. I was typing text into the sixth, and the seventh was loading a page. What in the world is it doing with 49 threads? ....just curious.... -Jake From sanguish at digifix.com Fri Jan 4 18:12:02 2002 From: sanguish at digifix.com (Scott Anguish) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <82BF9559-0181-11D6-9440-000393120A7C@digifix.com> On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 08:35 PM, Jake Robb wrote: > In my last post about OW using too much RAM, I posted OW's line from > top. > > I just noticed that, at that point, there were 49 threads running for > the > seven browsers. I'll remind everyone that five of those browsers were > completely idle, in the background. I was typing text into the sixth, > and > the seventh was loading a page. > > What in the world is it doing with 49 threads? > I'd not be surprised if it generates one thread per download in progress.. and take your average WWW page with a bazillion tiny images in it... From robb8350 at ionline.com Fri Jan 4 18:14:01 2002 From: robb8350 at ionline.com (Jake Robb) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? In-Reply-To: <82BF9559-0181-11D6-9440-000393120A7C@digifix.com> Message-ID: Scott Anguish wrote: > I'd not be surprised if it generates one thread per download in > progress.. and take your average WWW page with a bazillion tiny images > in it... Well, there's 39 right now, and there are no transfers going on. I don't think that's it. -Jake From jspectre at lords.com Fri Jan 4 18:45:01 2002 From: jspectre at lords.com (johnathan spectre) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020105024427.GA2749@bertha.jspectre.dyndns.org> Hmm.. Probably waiting for user input, screen draws, housekeeping, listening for url requests. How many threads do other programs take? Who says 47 is a lot or a little? From johnb at austin.rr.com Fri Jan 4 19:39:01 2002 From: johnb at austin.rr.com (John Bryan) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My first theory is that these are threads going out and checking your various sites for updates. On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 07:35 PM, Jake Robb wrote: > In my last post about OW using too much RAM, I posted OW's line from > top. > > I just noticed that, at that point, there were 49 threads running for > the > seven browsers. I'll remind everyone that five of those browsers were > completely idle, in the background. I was typing text into the sixth, > and > the seventh was loading a page. > > What in the world is it doing with 49 threads? > > ....just curious.... > > -Jake > From tao at acc.umu.se Fri Jan 4 19:42:01 2002 From: tao at acc.umu.se (David Weinehall) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? In-Reply-To: <20020105024427.GA2749@bertha.jspectre.dyndns.org>; from jspectre@lords.com on Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 08:44:27PM -0600 References: <20020105024427.GA2749@bertha.jspectre.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20020105044119.F5235@khan.acc.umu.se> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 08:44:27PM -0600, johnathan spectre wrote: > Hmm.. Probably waiting for user input, screen draws, housekeeping, > listening for url requests. How many threads do other programs take? > Who says 47 is a lot or a little? Well, as an answer to this, let me quote Larry McVoy: "Think of it this way: threads are like salt, not like pasta. You like salt, I like salt, we all like salt. But we eat more pasta." Unless you have an SMP-machine or a hyperthreaded CPU (like the P4 supposedly is), there generally is no gain in using threads. A statemachine is always more efficient. Threads are simple to program, but not very efficient... /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ Message-ID: On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 10:41 PM, David Weinehall wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 08:44:27PM -0600, johnathan spectre wrote: > > Well, as an answer to this, let me quote Larry McVoy: > > "Think of it this way: threads are like salt, not like pasta. You > like salt, I like salt, we all like salt. But we eat more pasta." > > Unless you have an SMP-machine or a hyperthreaded CPU (like the P4 > supposedly is), there generally is no gain in using threads. A > statemachine is always more efficient. Threads are simple to program, > but not very efficient... But if you use a dual processor machine, I was under the impression that more threads made it easier for the OS to divide the work of the application across both processors. So, as Omni has done with other apps, they've made it multi-processor friendly (and improved performance for DP machines). Yes? -- Michael From tao at acc.umu.se Fri Jan 4 20:07:01 2002 From: tao at acc.umu.se (David Weinehall) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? In-Reply-To: ; from msneider@mac.com on Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 10:53:58PM -0500 References: <20020105044119.F5235@khan.acc.umu.se> Message-ID: <20020105050637.H5235@khan.acc.umu.se> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 10:53:58PM -0500, Michael Sneider wrote: > > On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 10:41 PM, David Weinehall wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 08:44:27PM -0600, johnathan spectre wrote: > > > > Well, as an answer to this, let me quote Larry McVoy: > > > > "Think of it this way: threads are like salt, not like pasta. You > > like salt, I like salt, we all like salt. But we eat more pasta." > > > > Unless you have an SMP-machine or a hyperthreaded CPU (like the P4 > > supposedly is), there generally is no gain in using threads. A > > statemachine is always more efficient. Threads are simple to program, > > but not very efficient... > > But if you use a dual processor machine, I was under the impression that > more threads made it easier for the OS to divide the work of the > application across both processors. > So, as Omni has done with other apps, they've made it multi-processor > friendly (and improved performance for DP machines). Yes? Yes, without threads you can't divide the work onto different processors. But to utilize 49 threads you'd need 49 CPU's. There _are_ PPC-machines with that many processors (or at least, POWER-machines, which are similar enough) but for the cost of those machines you can buy yourself quite a luxurious mansion and still have money left for a car etc. Read the quote again. It's not saying that threads are bad per se, but rather that too many threads are bad. Regards: David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ We all know sp25 is being a bit of a performance pig... I'm sure the good 'ol boys are on it as I type. There is a problem I have not seen any one else mention. When opening an "internal" file, that I've predetermined OmniWeb to open (i.e. an html file), with OW down, sp25 launches and opens the file, but also opens the default home page (separate page.) I've not noticed this behavior before... usually just the chosen file opens upon launch. Rui From crusader_x at mac.com Fri Jan 4 22:40:01 2002 From: crusader_x at mac.com (Erick King) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: I found an error. In-Reply-To: <32E7DE2E-01A6-11D6-8A08-0030656EBEEC@goldcompass.com> Message-ID: I was at eBay. I was trying to use their advanced search page. When I clicked on the search button, the page would proceed as if I'd typed nothing into the box. Normal searching works fine, and the advanced search works with Netscape and IE. What would cause this kind of a problem. Seems a tad weird.... EK From dhampson at pullman.com Fri Jan 4 22:40:11 2002 From: dhampson at pullman.com (David Hampson) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? In-Reply-To: <20020105050637.H5235@khan.acc.umu.se> Message-ID: On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 08:06 PM, David Weinehall wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 10:53:58PM -0500, Michael Sneider wrote: >> >> On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 10:41 PM, David Weinehall wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 08:44:27PM -0600, johnathan spectre wrote: >>> >>> Well, as an answer to this, let me quote Larry McVoy: >>> >>> "Think of it this way: threads are like salt, not like pasta. You >>> like salt, I like salt, we all like salt. But we eat more pasta." >>> >>> Unless you have an SMP-machine or a hyperthreaded CPU (like the P4 >>> supposedly is), there generally is no gain in using threads. A >>> statemachine is always more efficient. Threads are simple to program, >>> but not very efficient... Omni is a Cocoa Application. Carbon Apps can be multi-threaded, but the Kernel will only see the one. For Cocoa and java apps, the Kernel will be needed. A gif animation on a web page will get it's own thread. Probably a couple threads just for the http, One for rendering,..... (One a page?) I'm not at all surprised at the large number of threads. If the Kernel could peek inside IE (a Carbon app) I bet there would be the same number of threads. -Dave "Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the things they make it easier to do don't need to be done." -- Andy Rooney From bchin at mdimension.com Sat Jan 5 06:08:01 2002 From: bchin at mdimension.com (Bill Chin) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: SonicWall management works Message-ID: <707DCF44-01E5-11D6-97B5-0003930FD486@mdimension.com> With OmniWeb 4.1sp26 and LiveConnect turned on, I can now manage a SonicWall router through the web interface. Yay! ..Bill Chin M Dimension Technology (BTW, using Mozilla 0.9.7 with the beta MRJ PlugIn also works) From bcovey at omnigroup.com Sat Jan 5 06:29:02 2002 From: bcovey at omnigroup.com (Brian Covey) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Sneakypeek 26 and release notes are up. Message-ID: <8CF0F534-01E8-11D6-BD6E-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> MWSF prep has me completely offline as to the list, so if this duplicates known info, apologies in advance. SP 26 will fix the big bad bug which rendered sp 25 less than ideal, and fixes some other stuff, as well. Enjoy! Sincerely, Brian Covey Support Engineer Omni Group From jim.correia at pobox.com Sat Jan 5 07:00:58 2002 From: jim.correia at pobox.com (Jim Correia) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Saturday, January 5, 2002, at 01:39 AM, David Hampson wrote: > Omni is a Cocoa Application. Carbon Apps can be multi-threaded, but > the Kernel will only see the one. For Cocoa and java apps, the Kernel > will be needed. [snip] > I'm not at all surprised at the large number of threads. If the Kernel > could peek inside IE (a Carbon app) I bet there would be the same > number of threads. That's nonsense. Carbon apps have "real" threads that can be seen by everyone. If you looked at IE (your example) in top, you can see this. I don't know where the source is of the continuous flow of misinformation, or why the Carbon vs. Cocoa crap continues, but it doesn't serve anyone's purposes (if said purpose is to get high quality, useful applications on X). From rft at vrvis.at Sat Jan 5 07:24:03 2002 From: rft at vrvis.at (Robert F Tobler) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Sp25 unusably slow In-Reply-To: <200201042004.MAA00714@lists> Message-ID: <20D95A47-01F0-11D6-AF29-00039344B02E@vrvis.at> After having used 4.1b1 for a while, I switched to 4.1-sp25, but for a number of sitest this is unusably slow, or doesn't seem to load some pages at all (it might load them, but it takes so long I didn't have the patience to wait). A restart of OmniWeb and a direct load of the affected page sometimes helped. In addtion to that sp25 squanders CPU time left and right. I switched back to 4.1b1 for a decent browsing experience. Some of the Pages which exhibit this behaviour (there are many more): The version tracker site. The forum pages of http://www.dpreview.com/ : http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1007 Robert F. Tobler rft@vrvis.at -- Robert F. Tobler www.vrvis.at -- VRVis Research Center From gblock at ctoforaday.com Sat Jan 5 08:42:03 2002 From: gblock at ctoforaday.com (Gregory Block) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Why so many threads? In-Reply-To: <20020105050637.H5235@khan.acc.umu.se> Message-ID: <104CD7D8-01FB-11D6-B5EC-003065D50DAE@ctoforaday.com> On Saturday, January 5, 2002, at 04:06 AM, David Weinehall wrote: > Yes, without threads you can't divide the work onto different > processors. But to utilize 49 threads you'd need 49 CPU's. There > _are_ PPC-machines with that many processors (or at least, > POWER-machines, which are similar enough) but for the cost of those > machines you can buy yourself quite a luxurious mansion and still > have money left for a car etc. > > Read the quote again. It's not saying that threads are bad per se, but > rather that too many threads are bad. You're trading off task-switch overhead and the impact on caches with the need to separate threads of activity for good I/O performance. Remember that an OS manages more resources than just timeslices of CPU time - it manages all system resources. This includes network I/O, disk I/O, and handling the rendering of the system. Anything that blocks can be placed into its own thread to allow other functionality to run. Keeping the main loop to a manageable size is what keeps your input - when you click here, or do something with the widgets on-screen - to minimum latency. Imagine that you could do all of OmniWeb within a single thread - no threading whatsoever. When packets came in, your main event loop would handle that; images too. What happens when something blocks? Activity stops on any activities which are dependent on that thread, that event loop. By minimizing that, by using threads, you can ensure minimal impact on other parts of the application when threading is used to isolate the tasks which block and the tasks which need to behave reliably. You want that gif animation to be smooth? That timer had better have a predictable latency in responding to it. You want good I/O performance? You'd better have threads that handle that I/O with as little latency and as much efficiency as possible. Threads are a mechanism, a tool for helping to achieve that goal. Having too many threads, it is true, will result in blown caching. But how many of those threads are really awake, and how many of them are blocking on input from some other activity? Volume of threads mean nothing if all threads are blocking on some kind of slow operation - such as disk, network, or blocking on user input or some user-input-driven activity. If OmniWeb were completely CPU-bound, you might wonder whether or not removing threading would improve efficiency of caches and help to make the system perform more quickly; however, given OmniWeb's efficiency of threading, most of OW's threads are either blocking on I/O, or blocking on data which comes from a thread that's blocking on I/O. This is an efficient way of separating dependencies, and is a good, if complex, example of good design. HTH. :) :plur, Greg From gblock at ctoforaday.com Sat Jan 5 08:48:00 2002 From: gblock at ctoforaday.com (Gregory Block) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: OW using WAY too much RAM In-Reply-To: <20020104185617.GA28284@bertha.jspectre.dyndns.org> Message-ID: On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 06:56 PM, johnathan spectre wrote: > One thing I'll say is if you are used to applications in OS X > having OS 9 sized memory partitions you need to rethink things. > Applications under X suck up a lot more RAM due to all the extra > bells, whistles and graphics of X. Windows cost a lot more in RAM > usage and CPU time to draw, don't think Aqua comes cheap. 100M of > RAM for OmniWeb to render a few web pages beautifully is nothing. > Think Netscape 4.x would render them as well in 1/2 the memory and > not bug? Let's add in the advanced features of OW and that it's > not some 1/2 baked "carbon" app. Everyone needs to keep in mind that this includes the rendering area's backing store and all of the graphics for the screen, now - so these numbers aren't actually realistic determiners of how much is actually being used by the application at any one point in time. Also, some of those libraries are shared across the system - and yet each application shows that as being used within its own space, because it's memory-mapped into the space; that same memory, for any other library, is also mapped into other processes, yet it only *really* exists as a single entity. Those numbers are misleading, to the unaware. Those of us with Unix or NeXT backgrounds should ensure that we explain that fact to people whenever possible - they read much more like stereo instructions than the first glance at those numbers would have you believe. From brent at baton.phys.lsu.edu Sat Jan 5 09:42:03 2002 From: brent at baton.phys.lsu.edu (Brent Neal) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Sp26 cookie bug In-Reply-To: <8CF0F534-01E8-11D6-BD6E-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> References: <8CF0F534-01E8-11D6-BD6E-00050209C5D2@omnigroup.com> Message-ID: I clicked on a link from /. to www.ea.com/eagames/maj_close2.jsp It asked me for a cookie once and I rejected it. No problem. It asked me for a second cookie, I clicked reject, and got the spinning color wheel of doom. This has been repeatable (3 times). I noted in the release notes that you frobbed something with cookies in this release, so I figured I'd chime in. B -- Brent Neal Concurrent Computing Laboratory for Materials Simulations Dept. of Physics - Dept. of Computer Science Louisiana State University From timorme at clara.co.uk Sat Jan 5 09:43:01 2002 From: timorme at clara.co.uk (Tim Orme) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Sneakypeek Message-ID: <851CECFD-0203-11D6-A737-00039304452A@clara.co.uk> I have only been using Omniweb for a week or two ( 4.1 beta 1 (v332) ). Could someone explain what sneakypeek is? Many thanks, Tim. From stephen at ju-ju.com Sat Jan 5 10:48:59 2002 From: stephen at ju-ju.com (Stephen Chu) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: OW using WAY too much RAM References: Message-ID: <004d01c19619$717d9950$6301a8c0@pc> I don't mind OW uses more memory when it is working. What bothers me and most other people here is it has significant memory leaks. That is the memory size it takes does not come back down when all windows are closed and it's not doing anything. This make me constantly relaunch OW after a few hours of surfing. BTW, Cocoa and Carbon, in their current state, both are "1/2 baked". If you followed this list closely, you will know even OmniWeb makes use of a lot of Carbon calls. And if not for Carbon, OW won't be so multi-language friendly. Heck, even the OS itself relies on Carbon to work. ie. you can only write input methods in Carbon. From michael at hesta.com Sat Jan 5 10:49:07 2002 From: michael at hesta.com (Michael Verruto) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: SNEAKY PETE'S! Message-ID: I mighta missed it before but i LOVE the "Check for Updates" feature!!!!! WHOOOO-HOOOOO!!!!!! And with LiveUpdate enabled we can now use OW sp>25 to run the web interface on our SONICWALL'S!!!!! YOU GUYS ROCK ALRIGHT I HAVE HAD IT... I am upgrading our site liscence to 10 users today....;) From david at gwenhiver.net Sat Jan 5 11:01:01 2002 From: david at gwenhiver.net (David Martin) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Sneakypeek In-Reply-To: <851CECFD-0203-11D6-A737-00039304452A@clara.co.uk> Message-ID: <72810E5C-020E-11D6-9FEF-0030657BE5C2@gwenhiver.net> On Saturday, January 5, 2002, at 06:41 , Tim Orme wrote: > I have only been using Omniweb for a week or two ( 4.1 beta 1 (v332) ). > Could someone explain what sneakypeek is? Sneakypeeks are "the build of the day". You will find more information about sneakypeeks on the sneakypeek's page: . David From derekc at mac.com Sat Jan 5 12:30:00 2002 From: derekc at mac.com (derek) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Sp26 cookie bug In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have "Prompt on each cookie" set too and have noticed the same problem with other sites. Rejecting or accepting cookies seems to hang the browser for me. -dc On Saturday, January 5, 2002, at 09:41 AM, Brent Neal wrote: > > I clicked on a link from /. to www.ea.com/eagames/maj_close2.jsp It > asked me for a cookie once and I rejected it. No problem. It asked me > for a second cookie, I clicked reject, and got the spinning color wheel > of doom. This has been repeatable (3 times). I noted in the release > notes that you frobbed something with cookies in this release, so I > figured I'd chime in. > > > B > -- Brent Neal > Concurrent Computing Laboratory for Materials Simulations > Dept. of Physics - Dept. of Computer Science > Louisiana State University > _______________________________________________ > OmniWeb-l mailing list > OmniWeb-l@omnigroup.com > http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l From brent at baton.phys.lsu.edu Sat Jan 5 12:35:01 2002 From: brent at baton.phys.lsu.edu (Brent Neal) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: Sp26 cookie bug In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >I have "Prompt on each cookie" set too and have noticed the same >problem with other sites. Rejecting or accepting cookies seems to >hang the browser for me. > >-dc > Yeah, I've played with it a bit more - both accept and reject hang the browser, on almost every page I've tried. I've had to downgrade to sp24 for the time being. -- Brent Neal Concurrent Computing Laboratory for Materials Simulations Dept. of Physics - Dept. of Computer Science Louisiana State University From tholsen at mac.com Sat Jan 5 13:17:01 2002 From: tholsen at mac.com (Thomas Olsen) Date: Thu Nov 3 14:33:29 2005 Subject: I found an error. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <766108EE-0221-11D6-B62F-00039357FC58@mac.com> On Friday, January 4, 2002, at 10:39 PM, Erick King wrote: > I was at eBay. I was trying to use their advanced search page. When I > clicked on the search button, the page would proceed as if I'd typed > nothing into the box. Normal searching works fine, and the advanced > search works with Netscape and IE. What would cause this kind of a > problem. Seems a tad weird.... >