Nikon Forum Haywire

[chris hughes]

Something went weird with the coding for the Nikon forum. When you roll over any linkage

on the index page every link on the page gets an underline. It's bugging the heck out of me...

[bobatkins]

It all looks pefectly normal from where I'm sitting (XP and IE or Firefox)

 

Possibly a local problem on your system. What OS and browser do you use?

 

As always, never hurts to logout of photo.net and log back in and to reboot your system if you see something odd going on. Probably won't fix it, but not too much trouble to try.

[mottershead]

The script that generates the Nikon forum is the exact same as that which generates all the other forums, and the stylesheet is the same; so if there is something wrong with just one forum, the first thing to suspect is that something is amiss with your browser, and that it has gotten itself into a strange state.

[neil_parker]

Yes, I am seeing this also! I am using Safari web browser w/ Mac OS10.3.9. I emailed Shun

about it and he said he doesn't see it with IE, so he suggested posting here.

 

Basically the whole table cell that contains the postings becomes a link that contains the

text below:

 

>http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?

topic_id=1562%3EPhoto.Net%20Site%20Feedback%3C/

A%3E%20Forum.%3CP%3EDiscussions%20should%20be%20based%20on%20facts,%20not%2

0rumors%20or%20speculations.%20Back%20in%20the%20early%201990's,%20there%20wer

e%20constant%20rumors%20that%20Nikon%20would%20soon%20change%20the%20F%20m

ount%20which%20has%20been%20in%20use%20since%201959.%20Now%20well%20over%2

0a%20decade%20later,%20that%20same%20basic%20F%20mount%20is%20still%20in%20use

%20and%20those%20rumors%20turn%20out%20to%20be%20completely%20false.%20Theref

ore,%20please%20do%20not%20post%20those%20faked%20images%20of%20future%20Nik

on%20cameras%20and%20lenses%20here.%3CP%3ECanon%20vs.%20Nikon%20debates%20h

as%20been%20going%20on%20perhaps%20since%20the%201980's.%20Both%20brands%20

made%20a%20lot%20of%20excellent%20equipment,%20so%20please%20choose%20whatev

er%20that%20fits%20you%20best.%20The%20same%20applies%20to%20the%20recent%20fil

m%20vs.%20digital%20debates.%20It%20should%20not%20matter%20to%20you%20what%2

0someone%20else%20uses.%20%20%3Ccenter%3E%3C/

center%3E%20%20%3Ch2%3EOlder%20Questions%20(by%20category)%3C/

h2%3E%20%20%3Cdiv%20class=

[neil_parker]

Additionally; I did quit safari and try again, no change, same problem. The nikon forum is

the only forum that exhibits this glitch. All the other forums I checked do not have this

problem (leica, equipment, classic cams, digital cams, digital darkroom).

 

I think there is a broken tag somewhere.

[bobatkins]

Only thing I can think of is that maybe somebody tried to use HTML code in the title of their post and that it's somehow confusing the browser into thinking the thread list is one big link. Do you get to the appropriate threads when you lick on their title?

 

Different browsers react to bad HTML in different ways. Some ignore it, some go haywire.

 

I took a look at the HTML code for the page but nothing was obviously wrong and I didn't spot any glaring HTML problems. Since I don't have a Mac or Safari and I can't therefore actually see the problem myself, it's hard to figure out what's wrong!

 

All looks normal in Opera too.

[neil_parker]

BTW this problem just started this morning, was fine yesterday.

 

I tried IE and no problem there, I recall a similar glitch at times in the past, when someone

bolded text or something and forgot to close the tag. I have also see this sort of thing

when a table gets broken somehow.

 

The 'link' text contains this: (after substituting spaces for the %20), I tried googling

photonet for this text and couldn't find it, so its either not a real posting or too recent for

google:

 

>

Discussions should be based on facts, not rumors or speculations. Back in the early

1990's, there were constant rumors that Nikon would soon change the F mount which has

been in use since 1959. Now well over a decade later, that same basic F mount is still in

use and those rumors turn out to be completely false. Therefore, please do not post those

faked images of future Nikon cameras and lenses here.%3CP%3ECanon vs. Nikon debates

has been going on perhaps since the 1980's. Both brands made a lot of excellent

equipment, so please choose whatever that fits you best. The same applies to the recent

film vs. digital debates. It should not matter to you what someone else uses.

[neil_parker]

And yes, the posting links work properly, you only get the 'garbage' link when hovering

over the empty parts of the cell. All the text in that cell highlights when you are over

anywhere in that cell.

[neil_parker]

OK, here is a further clue, that text that I quoted above is supposed to be in the blue

column on the right: "About this Forum"

 

The descriptive paragraph of text is truncated, I quote below what now appears in that

column, the category links are OK.

 

>This forum is intended for discussion of photography using Nikon equipment. We mainly

focus on Nikon film and digital SLRs, lenses, flashes, but digicams such as Nikon's Coolpix

line and Nikon film scanners are also discussed occasionally. If you are interested in large-

format photography using Nikon lenses, please visit the Large Format Photography Forum.

If you have suggestions or complaints about this forum, please either e-mail the

moderators or post your suggestions to the

 

...and then it is cut off. The remainder of the text is now in that 'garbage' link.

[bobatkins]

Try it now.

 

There was a malformed link in the forum description text. Maybe one of the forum moderators recently changed it?

[neil_parker]

Looking at the source of that page, I THINK I found the problem. The link that breaks the

page is this:

 

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1562>

Photo.Net Site Feedback</A> Forum.

 

 

It is missing the closing quote mark, should be thus:

 

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1562">

[neil_parker]

Yes, that link was the problem, it's working fine again now, thanks!

[jwittenberg]

Just another data point. It all works fine for me (Firefox v1.0.7 on Fedora Core Linux: Linux kernel 2.6.14-1.1644_FC4smp)

[bobatkins]

Thanks Neil.

 

I guess it shows that Safari is more fragile than the Windows browsers! I suppose you could claim that means it's closer to the ideal HTML standard, though it's not really an advantage given the number of pages out there that have malformed HTML on them!

[chris hughes]

Actually, it's a huge advantage for me because I'm a Web developer. Safari and Firefox are the

two browsers most sensitive to bad HTML. Those are my primary browsing platforms for that

very reason. Thanks for tracking down the error!

[bobatkins]

I think an HTML validator is a far better way to validate HTML than to see if it breaks Safari!

 

Personally I'd like a browser that was smart enough to figure out what the HTML was supposed to be, or at least fail gracefully when presented with errors.

[chris hughes]

Of course it goes wihout saying that checking a validator is recomended. But it's easy to catch

bugs when your browser chokes on them more readily. Sure, I could dev in Explorer and then

validate later but previewing in Safari/Firefox gives instant feedback. Then when I hit the

validation phase there's less to fix.

[bobatkins]

So are there any really strict browsers for Windows?

 

Firefox didn't even blink at this one. Neither did Opera or IE. Don't think anyone has ported Safari to Windows yet...

 

I test all my pages in the 3 windows browsers, but I'd be happy to add a 4th.

 

The Acid2 test checks for comliance ( http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/ ) but it causes non-comliant browsers to break (IE breaks badly, Firefox and Opera just break a bit). What we had here was non-comliant browsers working and compliant browsers breaking!