spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Recommendations for a new official website

2005-03-16 07:36:49
Julian Mehnle wrote:

I'm certainly not going to put form before content.

Plain text output of why.html for &debug=1 would be excellent.

The "form" is definitely broken with my browser, the "content"
is fine if I look at the raw HTML output and extract the plain
text between <pre> and </pre> hidden in many <table> constructs.
Or if I'd remove all absolute width= parameters.

If somebody tells my browser to squeeze a table with width=800
within a table with width=640, then my browser will try its
best with an invisible width=800-640 beyond the right edge and
no horizontal scrollbar.

It's a fact.  All speculations who's to blame in this case are
futile, why.html as it is doesn't work for my browser, but it
did in the old layout.

We (the council and the webmasters) will have to rely on the
community (=you and others) to do certain things

I've reported the simple fix to remove all width= in the new
why.html layout more than once, and that's an understatement.

Anything else is irrelevant, if I don't like it I don't link to
it, but why.html is critical in many default explanations.  It
should be the best SPF implementation available with the most
robust output for archaic devices.  Even a 40 * 25 characters
text mode should work with why.html,

The W3C validator allows to check "HTML 2 strict".  That's of
course ridiculous, but I'm sure that all XHTML BASIC devices
could display this, if you only stay away from SGML oddities.

See <http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/res.htm> for a demo, the
SGML </> problem with bold text behind it is an intentional
"bug", only one browser (amaya ?) supports HTML as specified.

In these regards, I trust myself enough to make decisions
that most of you can agree with. ;-)  I hope you do, too.

I'll believe it when I see it.  Meng often announced to fix it,
but he never had the time.  The old.spf.infinitepenguins.net
site can't replace why.html, it just told me that it's already
at its load limit.  If a user gets a SPF FAIL and hates it, he
won't wait 30 minutes, this is enough time to shoot the admin
responsible for the sender policy, and to find a new provider.

                           Bye, Frank



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>