On May 21, 20:36, Hans Franke wrote:
> Thank you very much Pete.
>
> I was already so into bitch mode that I completely forgot
> to look for a work around.
I know the feeling only too well. I get extremely irritated at stupid
things like this, myself. In fairness to Claude, I don't think he knew
about the domain name rules. It seemed to be a complete surprise to him
when I explained. I understand he originally asked for "computercollector"
but the stupid ISP claimed it was too similar to something else but it was
OK with the underscore (yeah, like the underscore makes all the
difference). That ISP does what mine does: the "nice" personalised URL
that looks like you have your own server is actually an alias to the
canonical name, and the webserver is running virtual servers, translating
xyzzy.tripod.com to members.tripod.com/xyzzy/. So the caonical URL is
legal, but some droid at the ISP forgot (or didn't know) that the alias
wasn't.
> P.S.: The example about the page size is true ... there is a
> generation of collectors ahead who don't know anything
> about the ideas behind the prety plasic boxes.
My pet hate is typified by pages that use screeds of Javascript to achieve
what could have been does more easily and in 1/4th the space using plain
sensible HTML -- and which fail to load properly on my machine because I
normally have Javascript turned off for safety (it's a Unix box, so the
risk is reduced, but you never know -- and I practically *never* turn Java
on). For an example of the worst kind of page that needlessly complains
when Javascript is disabled, see
http://www.enterasys.com/ . It only
fails because the error display gets in the way of the links!
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Received on Mon May 21 2001 - 16:29:42 BST