My brother, who lives in Denmark, called today on WhatsApp.
He mentioned the change in mail delivery in Denmark (Which I already
knew about) and how email from the Danish government now requires a verification system that seems to me to be impossibly difficult.
My brother's command of English has deteriored in the 56 years he's
lived in Denmark. But, as I understand it, the government provides a
device that generates numbers. When a government email arrives, to
open it requires using that device to generate a sequence of numbers
that must be entered to open the email. Evidently, if the recipient
doesn't have the device, the mail can't be opened. My brother doesn't remember how he obtained the device.
Having my phone available to open that kind of email is bothersome
enough, but a separate device used only for that purpose seems
excessive.
My brother's command of English has deteriored in the 56 years he's
lived in Denmark.
After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
On 03/01/26 10:49, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:15:26 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel. My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders,
and that was in my mind. At my age, the mind has a limited capacity.
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.
But Anders D. Nygaard posted here on January 1st, and I certainly
consider him an RR even if less frequent than in the past.
/dps
My brother's command of English has deteriored in the 56 years he's
lived in Denmark.
I would beg to disagree. If he started with AmE, his English has
probably improved.
Snidely is guilty of <mn.13d97ea124d4df63.127094@snitoo> as of 1/2/2026 4:25:57 PM
After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
On 03/01/26 10:49, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:15:26 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel. My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders,
and that was in my mind. At my age, the mind has a limited capacity.
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.
But Anders D. Nygaard posted here on January 1st, and I certainly consider him an RR even if less frequent than in the past.
Number 51 on the recent stats listing.
My brother, who lives in Denmark, called today on WhatsApp.
He mentioned the change in mail delivery in Denmark (Which I already
knew about) and how email from the Danish government now requires a verification system that seems to me to be impossibly difficult.
My brother's command of English has deteriored in the 56 years he's
lived in Denmark.
But, as I understand it, the government provides a
device that generates numbers. When a government email arrives, to
open it requires using that device to generate a sequence of numbers
that must be entered to open the email. Evidently, if the recipient
doesn't have the device, the mail can't be opened. My brother doesn't remember how he obtained the device.
In the US, it's a common practice for certain senders of email to
require a two-step verification. The mail will contain a link to a
site that returns a five or six digit number on the recipient's mobile
phone. Adding those numbers to the original email opens it.
Alternatively, I can set up a PIN that I can memorize and enter that
instead of the phoned numbers.
Having my phone available to open that kind of email is bothersome
enough, but a separate device used only for that purpose seems
excessive.
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
But, as I understand it, the government provides a device that
generates numbers. When a government email arrives, to open it
requires using that device to generate a sequence of numbers that
must be entered to open the email. Evidently, if the recipient
doesn't have the device, the mail can't be opened. My brother
doesn't remember how he obtained the device.
One of my banks has a system like that. (from long ago) It is
obsolete. Why have a separate device when 'everyone' aleady has a
phone?
On 03/01/26 21:11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
But, as I understand it, the government provides a device that
generates numbers. When a government email arrives, to open it
requires using that device to generate a sequence of numbers that
must be entered to open the email. Evidently, if the recipient
doesn't have the device, the mail can't be opened. My brother
doesn't remember how he obtained the device.
One of my banks has a system like that. (from long ago) It is
obsolete. Why have a separate device when 'everyone' aleady has a
phone?
The Danish device is free. Phones have become obscenely expensive, and
it's become almost impossible to get a phone that just does phone calls.
(OK, and maybe SMS.)
The Danish device is free. Phones have become obscenely expensive, and
it's become almost impossible to get a phone that just does phone calls.
(OK, and maybe SMS.)
On 1/2/26 11:04 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
My brother's command of English has deteriored in the 56 years he's
lived in Denmark.
I would beg to disagree. If he started with AmE, his English has
probably improved.
Den 03.01.2026 kl. 11.36 skrev Peter Moylan:
The Danish device is free. Phones have become obscenely expensive, and
it's become almost impossible to get a phone that just does phone calls. (OK, and maybe SMS.)
It's possible. The company Doro has specialised in providing simple
phones for old people or people with special needs.
Den 02.01.2026 kl. 23.04 skrev Tony Cooper:
[Ping Anders]
You have explained what went through your mind, but we actually have an >Anders following this group. But I think you just meant any Dane.
My brother, who lives in Denmark, called today on WhatsApp.
He mentioned the change in mail delivery in Denmark (Which I already
knew about) and how email from the Danish government now requires a
verification system that seems to me to be impossibly difficult.
It's not. It's not super simple either, but my father aged 101 can
master it in both ways.
The Danish device is free. Phones have become obscenely expensive, and
it's become almost impossible to get a phone that just does phone calls. >>> (OK, and maybe SMS.)
It's possible. The company Doro has specialised in providing simple
phones for old people or people with special needs.
There is a UK equivalent but it has absolutely dreadful software.
My brother's (84) ability to do technical things is a strange
combination. One of his hobbies is creating Arduino
microcontrollers and other electronic gadgetry.
He got into this when one of his sons (now deceased) was a
quadriplegic as a result of being struck by an automobile. My
brother constructed devices that allowed his son to control objects
and "write" by pressing his nose on a control board. He came up with
a device that allowed the boy to hurl paperwads at a moving target
by nose-touch control.
Yet, he is incapable (or says he is) of adding apps or programs to
his computer or telephone. We communicate on WhatsApp, and he had to
have one of his other sons to download and install WhatsApp on his
phone.
He can only send me a single photograph as an attachment to email
because his phone camera creates a file so large that two files
can't be attached. I've tried to get him to download an app that
resizes images, but he can't figure out how to do this.
He has his wife use the device mentioned to open email. He says
it's too complicated for him.
His progress was impressive. For years he had been writing a monthly
column for the Australian Bee Journal. He switched from producing
handwritten copy to using a word processor. He did that well, but he
never managed to master e-mail.
Den 03.01.2026 kl. 23.07 skrev Peter Moylan:
His progress was impressive. For years he had been writing a monthly column for the Australian Bee Journal. He switched from producing handwritten copy to using a word processor. He did that well, but he
never managed to master e-mail.
I should mention that there is a reason why my father manages computers quite well. He got an Amstrad around the time when I had a CBM64, and he learned to program (not very well) in Basic. Since then he has upgraded, so he has made the whole trip as a user.
With his age he has become dependent on fixed routines, so he more and more relies on me for help when something disturbs his circles. But on a day to day basis he is completely at home with computers and mobiles.
A retired GP of my acquaintance had his quality of life destroyed by the switch
to Windows 11;
I expect to be able to continue to use a Linux machine without any forced changes in user interface for the foreseeable, as long as I avoid Gnome.
On 03/01/26 10:49, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:15:26 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel. My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders,
and that was in my mind. At my age, the mind has a limited capacity.
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.
Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel.-a My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders,
and that was in my mind.-a At my age, the mind has a limited capacity.
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.
Have I whooshed everyone? I thought I was quoting a well-known statement.
On 03/01/26 11:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 03/01/26 10:49, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:15:26 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel. My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders,
and that was in my mind. At my age, the mind has a limited capacity.
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.
Have I whooshed everyone? I thought I was quoting a well-known statement.
On 03/01/26 11:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 03/01/26 10:49, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:15:26 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel. My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders,
and that was in my mind. At my age, the mind has a limited capacity.
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.
Have I whooshed everyone? I thought I was quoting a well-known statement.
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> posted:
After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
On 03/01/26 10:49, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 16:15:26 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel. My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders,
and that was in my mind. At my age, the mind has a limited capacity.
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.
But Anders D. Nygaard posted here on January 1st, and I certainly
consider him an RR even if less frequent than in the past.
AOL. I know it's not usually helpful to indicate agreement, but in this case it seems worthwhile to mention that others consider Anders to be an RR.
Den 02.01.2026 kl. 23.04 skrev Tony Cooper:
[Ping Anders]
You have explained what went through your mind, but we actually have an Anders following this group. But I think you just meant any Dane.
My brother, who lives in Denmark, called today on WhatsApp.
He mentioned the change in mail delivery in Denmark (Which I already
knew about) and how email from the Danish government now requires a
verification system that seems to me to be impossibly difficult.
It's not. It's not super simple either, but my father aged 101 can
master it in both ways.
My brother's command of English has deteriored in the 56 years he's
lived in Denmark.-a But, as I understand it, the government provides a
device that generates numbers.-a When a government email arrives, to
open it requires using that device to generate a sequence of numbers
that must be entered to open the email.-a Evidently, if the recipient
doesn't have the device, the mail can't be opened.-a My brother doesn't
remember how he obtained the device.
There are two methods. One requires a mobile phone with an app. The
other - provided as a second option and an option for people who do not
want to have a mobile - requires a small device that you can get for
free at Borgerservice (Citizen's service).
The log-on procedure is not just for official email. It's for banks, museums, power supplyers, garbage companies - whoever chooses this as an option.
Here's what happens when I log on to my Eboks (for secure email). I'll describe both methods.
Number device:
I open the Eboks webpage in my browser and click on "Log on with MitID"
(My ID), enter username, press the button on the number device and key
in the shown number (6 digits), and then enter my password.
App:
I open the app beforehand and enter my pincode (6 digits). Then I open
the Eboks webpage in my browser and click on "Log on with MitID" (My
ID), enter username, and click on "|aben MitID app". A QR-code appears
which I catch in the app window, and then I swipe "Godkend" (Accept).
The official email along with emails from all companires who need secure email is sent to our "Eboks".
Having my phone available to open that kind of email is bothersome
enough, but a separate device used only for that purpose seems
excessive.
I prefer to use the number device. I have it next to my computer. The
phone may be lying many other places.
The official recommendation is to
have two different ways to log on because it's a huge problem if you are
cut off from MitID.
I have three ways because I have the app on a tablet
as well.
Den 03.01.2026 kl. 11.36 skrev Peter Moylan:
The Danish device is free. Phones have become obscenely expensive, and
it's become almost impossible to get a phone that just does phone calls.
(OK, and maybe SMS.)
It's possible. The company Doro has specialised in providing simple
phones for old people or people with special needs.
Den 04.01.2026 kl. 10.19 skrev Aidan Kehoe:
A retired GP of my acquaintance had his quality of life destroyed
by the switch to Windows 11;
'Upgrades' is an invention of Satan. Perfectly well functioning apps suddenly change behaviour in an unpredictable manner forcing me to learn
new routines.
I expect to be able to continue to use a Linux machine without any
forced changes in user interface for the foreseeable, as long as I
avoid Gnome.
It was the tedious and slow process of forced and blocking Windows
updates that finally made me switch to Linux.
Den 04.01.2026 kl. 10.51 skrev Peter Moylan:
Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel. My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders,
and that was in my mind. At my age, the mind has a limited capacity.
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.
Have I whooshed everyone? I thought I was quoting a well-known statement.
Sort of. I know what you refer to, but it didn't dawn on me until you--
named Martin Luther.
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> writes:
Den 04.01.2026 kl. 10.51 skrev Peter Moylan:
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel. My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders, >>>>> and that was in my mind. At my age, the mind has a limited capacity. >>>>
Have I whooshed everyone? I thought I was quoting a well-known statement.
Got it right off except.... I'm not fluent in German but, IIRC, it should "kann", not "kenn".
--Sort of. I know what you refer to, but it didn't dawn on me until you
named Martin Luther.
Worst looming hassle is the wave of so many web sites demanding or
becoming flatly unusable without javascript support. Supporting js
means regular (and frequent) updates to your browser because only the
latest versions accommodate unrestrained exfoliation of js locutions,
of which I surmise, many are cruft and eye candy inserted to inflate
the egos of js programmers, managers and execs.
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.
Have I whooshed everyone? I thought I was quoting a well-known statement.
Got it right off except.... I'm not fluent in German but, IIRC, it should "kann", not "kenn".
Got it right off except....-a I'm not fluent in German but, IIRC, it
should
"kann", not "kenn".
Actually it's "kenne". "Kann" means "kan/can". Spoken "kenn" will work
just fine.
It was the tedious and slow process of forced and blocking Windows
updates that finally made me switch to Linux.
No longer 100% smooth sailing as it has been for me for 27 years.
Worst looming hassle is the wave of so many web sites demanding or
becoming flatly unusable without javascript support. Supporting
js means regular (and frequent) updates to your browser because only
the latest versions accommodate unrestrained exfoliation of js
locutions, of which I surmise, many are cruft and eye candy inserted
to inflate the egos of js programmers, managers and execs.
I've been updating my Slackware system since I went all in for Linux
in '99. Still running a 32-bit version that accommodates executables
that I compiled 25 years ago, that I've carried along from Slackware 8
to 15. An example is GNU Emacs 20.7 which does everything I need and
doesn't require that I struggle to disable or subvert all the
"improvements" and new "features" that I immediately hate in every one
of the more recent Emasen I've tried.
(While I'm here grumping: With many hours of effort, I had contrived a
setup that made Google search (the only Gwgle thing I ever used) a
reliable and extremely useful utility. The compulsory switch to use
js as written in their search page (as opposed to a simple HTML FORM construct) has broken it from status of a stripped-down Land Rover
with a snorkel, winches etc. to that of a 1960 VW Beetle with a
burned-out exhaust valve on cylinder 3.)
Am I misremembering? I seem to recall a time when web browsers blocked javascript by default, because of the way it was being abused. Looking
at my Firefox right now, I can't even find that option. That probably
means it's somewhere in the "this will void your warranty" settings.
[1] The most significant of these is that I cannot use MobilePay
(a Danish app for instant money transfer - to friends, family or
small businesses), but have to rely on -gasp!- cash.
Another is that parking often requires an app to register time
of arrival.
I didn't think the matter properly through. Anders is richt, strictly
seen, but then the wordplay disappears.
Yes, there are parking lots where you can't pay without an app.
Hopefully the technique ... sorry: technology of reading numberplates
will be so advanced that you no longer need an app. I can cross several bridges automatically without doing anything.
Den 06.01.2026 kl. 07.51 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:
I didn't think the matter properly through. Anders is richt,
strictly seen, but then the wordplay disappears.
"richt" is an alternative spelling of "right".
On 06/01/26 11:06, Mike Spencer wrote:
Worst looming hassle is the wave of so many web sites demanding or
becoming flatly unusable without javascript support. Supporting js
means regular (and frequent) updates to your browser because only the latest versions accommodate unrestrained exfoliation of js locutions,
of which I surmise, many are cruft and eye candy inserted to inflate
the egos of js programmers, managers and execs.
Am I misremembering? I seem to recall a time when web browsers blocked javascript by default, because of the way it was being abused. Looking
at my Firefox right now, I can't even find that option. That probably
means it's somewhere in the "this will void your warranty" settings.
The world is ready for the creation of a blacklist of web sites that use javascript.
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> writes:
Den 04.01.2026 kl. 10.51 skrev Peter Moylan:
Hier stehe ich (mit Bertel), ich kenn nicht Anders.Was this aimed at Bertel, by any chance?
Yes...Bertel. My brother mentioned a friend with the name of Anders, >>>> and that was in my mind. At my age, the mind has a limited capacity. >>>
Have I whooshed everyone? I thought I was quoting a well-known statement.
Got it right off except.... I'm not fluent in German but, IIRC, it should "kann", not "kenn".
Sort of. I know what you refer to, but it didn't dawn on me until you named Martin Luther.
I've written dozens of websites and hundreds of web pages - none of them
have ever needed or used javascript.
Den 06.01.2026 kl. 11.24 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
I've written dozens of websites and hundreds of web pages - none of them have ever needed or used javascript.
If you want a webpage to be dynamic and not slow, then you need JS.
You can do the dynamic with a script language like PHP, but that will
delay the operation with a second or two because it needs a new fetch.
Most of my webpages are 'information' pages, not 'entertainment'.
I would have thought that 'dynamic' was a far less important property than the ability to read it on any browser. If you want to be certain of
turning away some of your customers because they can't read your
website, write it in javascript.
You can do the dynamic with a script language like PHP, but that will
delay the operation with a second or two because it needs a new fetch.
If you write it in PHP and plain HTML, the download becomes much smaller
and it can be a lot faster than the javascript equivalent on a
limited-speed data link.
Den 06.01.2026 kl. 12.03 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
Most of my webpages are 'information' pages, not 'entertainment'.
I'm not talking about entertainment. I'm talking about choices left to
the user.
I would have thought that 'dynamic' was a far less important property than the ability to read it on any browser. If you want to be certain of turning away some of your customers because they can't read your
website, write it in javascript.
Some, but not many.
Am I misremembering? I seem to recall a time when web browsers blocked >javascript by default, because of the way it was being abused. Looking
at my Firefox right now, I can't even find that option. That probably
means it's somewhere in the "this will void your warranty" settings.
The world is ready for the creation of a blacklist of web sites that use >javascript.
Den 06.01.2026 kl. 07.51 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:
I didn't think the matter properly through. Anders is richt, strictly
seen, but then the wordplay disappears.
"richt" is an alternative spelling of "right".
On 1/6/2026 8:36 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 06.01.2026 kl. 07.51 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:
I didn't think the matter properly through. Anders is richt, strictly
seen, but then the wordplay disappears.
"richt" is an alternative spelling of "right".
And "Anders" is an alternative spelling of "Peter"?
/Anders, Denmark
On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 20:08:01 +0100, "Anders D. Nygaard" <news2012adn@google.com> wrote:udfront.net%2Fcgccomics%2Fmonthly_2024_01%2Fimage.png.51aac8b43f3ade28e31bd07033004aa0.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a5e37da52ab32ba134213f7bb6b8ab2df23a527c5ef45bf4fa330c592fdfc5ba
On 1/6/2026 8:36 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 06.01.2026 kl. 07.51 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:
I didn't think the matter properly through. Anders is richt, strictly
seen, but then the wordplay disappears.
"richt" is an alternative spelling of "right".
And "Anders" is an alternative spelling of "Peter"?
/Anders, Denmark
I thought it was a Danish name that translates to "Donald". The comic
books feature "Anders Duck".
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fd3nvbf5pqk2vjh.clo
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 06.01.2026 kl. 11.24 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
I've written dozens of websites and hundreds of web pages - none
of them have ever needed or used javascript.
If you want a webpage to be dynamic and not slow, then you need
JS.
Most of my webpages are 'information' pages, not 'entertainment'. I
would have thought that 'dynamic' was a far less important property
than the ability to read it on any browser. If you want to be
certain of turning away some of your customers because they can't
read your website, write it in javascript.
The world is ready for the creation of a blacklist of web sites that use javascript.
On 06/01/26 22:03, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 06.01.2026 kl. 11.24 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
I've written dozens of websites and hundreds of web pages - none
of them have ever needed or used javascript.
If you want a webpage to be dynamic and not slow, then you need
JS.
Most of my webpages are 'information' pages, not 'entertainment'. I
would have thought that 'dynamic' was a far less important property
than the ability to read it on any browser. If you want to be
certain of turning away some of your customers because they can't
read your website, write it in javascript.
As far as I know, web analysis tools don't keep track of how many people
were unable to see the site. Web site developers seem to do their
testing with only one browser, so they're not aware of the problem.
They also test with a browser that's physically close to the server, so
they don't notice if their site is very slow.
Peter Moylan explained on 1/5/2026 :
The world is ready for the creation of a blacklist of web sites that use
javascript.
Well, that's either pretty simple, or better done with a white list of those that don't. The "pretty simple" is just block all domains.
The framework I use (a python backend) uses javascript for things like AJAX processing that allows updating a div rather than a whole page, and is involved completion suggestions for form entries. The newer HTMX library allows sites to be even more responsive and hypermedia-like, while still providing a simple programming model (it extends HTML attributes), and is useful for creating sites with REST APIs.
And then there are servers written in Javascript using node.js.
/dps
That may often be true, but there are sites around that provide multiple browsers set up for automated testing, and some of them also use
multiple OSs.-a These, of course, mainly use VMs.-a I played a little bit with one of these testing sites, but I'm not remembering how to get to
it.-a Seems to me that one of the key persons running it was either Dutch
or Scandanavian, which narrows things down a bit.-a (add smileys to taste)
On 06/01/26 11:06, Mike Spencer wrote:
Worst looming hassle is the wave of so many web sites demanding or
becoming flatly unusable without javascript support. Supporting js
means regular (and frequent) updates to your browser because only the
latest versions accommodate unrestrained exfoliation of js locutions,
of which I surmise, many are cruft and eye candy inserted to inflate
the egos of js programmers, managers and execs.
Am I misremembering? I seem to recall a time when web browsers blocked javascript by default, because of the way it was being abused. Looking
at my Firefox right now, I can't even find that option. That probably
means it's somewhere in the "this will void your warranty" settings.
The world is ready for the creation of a blacklist of web sites that use javascript.
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 00.50 skrev Snidely:
That may often be true, but there are sites around that provide multiple browsers set up for automated testing, and some of them also use
multiple OSs.-a These, of course, mainly use VMs.-a I played a little bit with one of these testing sites, but I'm not remembering how to get to it.-a Seems to me that one of the key persons running it was either Dutch or Scandanavian, which narrows things down a bit.-a (add smileys to taste)
My only test is to sent the page through W3 validator. If the code is strictly correct, it'll work in any browser unless the browser is faulty.
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
My only test is to sent the page through W3 validator. If the code is >>strictly correct, it'll work in any browser unless the browser is faulty.Is that a valid test? The W3 standards seem to have been 'updated' from
time to time, which means they don't take account of older browsers
which don't have those updates. The older browsers aren't faulty.
My only test is to sent the page through W3 validator. If the code is
strictly correct, it'll work in any browser unless the browser is faulty.
Is that a valid test?
The W3 standards seem to have been 'updated' from
time to time, which means they don't take account of older browsers
which don't have those updates. The older browsers aren't faulty.
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 10.46 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My only test is to sent the page through W3 validator. If the code is
strictly correct, it'll work in any browser unless the browser is faulty.
Is that a valid test?
I suppose so. I haven't read the specifications for HTML and CSS myself
and checked them against W3's validator.
The W3 standards seem to have been 'updated' from
time to time, which means they don't take account of older browsers
which don't have those updates. The older browsers aren't faulty.
Are you sure that your pages work in Opera 3.6 which in my view is the
best browser ever. Unfortunately it can't handle modern webpages. Too
many tags are unknown. Opera 3.5 came in 1998. 3.6 is still available.
http://www.oldversion.com/windows/opera-3-6
Or how about Netscape Navigator from the beginning of the nineties? It
was the first browser I got to use the first time I got an internet connection. It worked okay at the time.
My point is that you have to draw the line somewhere.
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one.
Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 10.46 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My only test is to sent the page through W3 validator. If the code is
strictly correct, it'll work in any browser unless the browser is faulty.
Is that a valid test?
I suppose so. I haven't read the specifications for HTML and CSS myself
and checked them against W3's validator.
The W3 standards seem to have been 'updated' from
time to time, which means they don't take account of older browsers
which don't have those updates. The older browsers aren't faulty.
Are you sure that your pages work in Opera 3.6 which in my view is the
best browser ever. Unfortunately it can't handle modern webpages. Too
many tags are unknown. Opera 3.5 came in 1998. 3.6 is still available.
http://www.oldversion.com/windows/opera-3-6
Or how about Netscape Navigator from the beginning of the nineties? It
was the first browser I got to use the first time I got an internet connection. It worked okay at the time.
My point is that you have to draw the line somewhere.
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one.
Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
A common example is tables - with Javascript the user can sort the
table according to the criteria they're interested in. Obviously
this *can* be done on the server side, but that's worse in several
ways.
In theory, JavaScript could totally be useful for something
meaningful, but it'd be just as easy for a browser to make
tables sortable by default - if they're built right, that is.
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one.
Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one.
Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
I won't continue this subject any more, but I would like to see a
webpage that you have designed. Could you give me a link?
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one.
Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
I won't continue this subject any more, but I would like to see a
webpage that you have designed. Could you give me a link?
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> posted:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one.
Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
I won't continue this subject any more, but I would like to see aWell, I'm not Liz, but I agree with what she says. THe CNRS helpfully deleted all of my web pages (without consulting me or informing me) when my term as Directeur de Recherche +morite ended. So, if you try to load
webpage that you have designed. Could you give me a link?
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/homepage.htm
you'll get a 404. However, the Wayback Machine can find it, and it looks unchanged from what I remember.
It's all HTML + CSS. All checked with a validator. The links that I have checked (by no means all of them), including downloads of PDF files, work. I don't think I have copies of the source files (HTML, CSS, JPEG).
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one.
Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
I won't continue this subject any more, but I would like to see a
webpage that you have designed. Could you give me a link?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/
http://www.tedkendall.com/index.php
http://www.dorandsomcanal.org/
There is another I would like to show you but it is currently undergoing reconstruction - I might post it here when it is ready.
On Wednesday, Liz Tuddenham exclaimed wildly:
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one. >>> Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
I won't continue this subject any more, but I would like to see a
webpage that you have designed. Could you give me a link?
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/
http://www.tedkendall.com/index.php
http://www.dorandsomcanal.org/
Good examples of pages that can be rendered statically. But many other
pages require look ups (updating registrations, making reservations, examining census data, large maps with variable zoom), and trying to do
that with only HTML is a course for madness.
\
There is another I would like to show you but it is currently undergoing reconstruction - I might post it here when it is ready.
athel.cb@gmail.com asserted that:
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> posted:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one. >>> Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
Even HTML5, long past The Year 2000, leaves many needs unmet.
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
athel.cb@gmail.com asserted that:
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> posted:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't
draw one. Most websites could be written in plain HTML
dating from about 2000, they would carry all the necessary
information, they would download quickly and they would work
on every browser.
Even HTML5, long past The Year 2000, leaves many needs unmet.
I would question whether these are 'needs' or just gimmicks.
In article <1rokc1k.1x4gv861jkiaqlN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000,
they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
That's true of many informational web pages, but there are also many
cases where client-side processing (i.e. Javascript) can make things
much better.
A common example is tables - with Javascript the user can sort the
table according to the criteria they're interested in. Obviously
this *can* be done on the server side, but that's worse in several
ways.
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
athel.cb@gmail.com asserted that:
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> posted:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one. >>> Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000, >>> they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
Even HTML5, long past The Year 2000, leaves many needs unmet.
I would question whether these are 'needs' or just gimmicks.
A common example is tables - with Javascript the user can sort the
table according to the criteria they're interested in. Obviously
this *can* be done on the server side, but that's worse in several
ways.
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/WOECLPGS/index.php
The same information from a database is presented in different ways, >depending on which page you are on (Forthcoming Events or Previous
Meetings). I haven't heard of any problems with it and one of my
websites that used it had been up for over 10 years.
On 08/01/26 21:27, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
athel.cb@gmail.com asserted that:
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> posted:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't
draw one. Most websites could be written in plain HTML
dating from about 2000, they would carry all the necessary
information, they would download quickly and they would work
on every browser.
Even HTML5, long past The Year 2000, leaves many needs unmet.
I would question whether these are 'needs' or just gimmicks.
I have the impression that the quality of web sites went down as new
gimmicks were added to HTML. Visually they're better, if that's how you
judge them, but it's become harder to find useful information. As you encourage gimmicks, there are some (many?) web site designers who have
lost sight of the importance of information content and the ease of navigation. They've been indoctrinated with the idea that information
hiding is important.
A particular problem in Australia is government web sites to support the elderly. The (presumably very young) web site developers don't seem to understand that many old people don't have the skills to decrypt their information-hiding strategies.
I do have those skills, mostly. (For example I do understand the
mysterious two-factor authentication.) My big gripe is internet banking.
What idiot thought it was a good idea to present numbers in a two-point
font using an off-white-on-white colour scheme?
Yes, I mean you. One day
your eyesight will also start to fade.
I'm one of the guilty parties, as it happens. For bank account
reconciliation and for keeping track of my expenses, I use a program
that I wrote back in 1985. Lately it became to hard to read the screen. Lucking, as it was my own program, I was able to modify the colours and
the font sizes.
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/WOECLPGS/index.php
My only test is to sent the page through W3 validator. If the code is
strictly correct, it'll work in any browser unless the browser is faulty.
Is that a valid test? The W3 standards seem to have been 'updated' from
time to time, which means they don't take account of older browsers
which don't have those updates. The older browsers aren't faulty.
Den 08.01.2026 kl. 13.51 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/WOECLPGS/index.php
There are several erros even after 2000 standards. The first one is the missing doctype declaration.
That means that strict browsers cannot display the page correctly or at all.
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 10.46 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My only test is to sent the page through W3 validator. If the code is
strictly correct, it'll work in any browser unless the browser is faulty.
Is that a valid test? The W3 standards seem to have been 'updated' from time to time, which means they don't take account of older browsers
which don't have those updates. The older browsers aren't faulty.
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_html_dtd.asp
If you were to set a correct doctype the W3 validator would check the
code according to the corresponding standard. You'd want this (unbroken):
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
It must be the first line of your HTML page.
The validator would then help you catch the errors.
https://validator.w3.org/
If you use it with no doctype, you'll get a heap of 'errors' because it
then assumes that you are using the latest standard.
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 10.46 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My only test is to sent the page through W3 validator. If the code isIs that a valid test? The W3 standards seem to have been 'updated' from >>> time to time, which means they don't take account of older browsers
strictly correct, it'll work in any browser unless the browser is faulty. >>>
which don't have those updates. The older browsers aren't faulty.
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_html_dtd.asp
If you were to set a correct doctype the W3 validator would check the
code according to the corresponding standard. You'd want this (unbroken):
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
It must be the first line of your HTML page.
The validator would then help you catch the errors.
https://validator.w3.org/
If you use it with no doctype, you'll get a heap of 'errors' because it
then assumes that you are using the latest standard.
The correct test is whether it displays on every browser, as far as I am aware, all my websites do. If it were compliant with the latest
standards there would be dozens of browsers that couldn't display it.
If you want the maximum number of people to read your websites, write
them in the lowest common denominator.
The correct test is whether it displays on every browser,
I have never come across a browser that won't display it and I have challenged several specialists over the last 15 years to find one. I
would be interested if you could tell me of a browser that doesn't
display it.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
It must be the first line of your HTML page.
The validator would then help you catch the errors.
https://validator.w3.org/
If you use it with no doctype, you'll get a heap of 'errors' because it
then assumes that you are using the latest standard.
The correct test is whether it displays on every browser, as far as I am aware, all my websites do. If it were compliant with the latest
standards there would be dozens of browsers that couldn't display it.
Rather irrelevant to AUE, but thank you very much for the interesting insights. If I were to write a website, I'd prefer it to be shown
correctly on every browser and screen.
Are the requirements for smartphones identical to those for tablets and
PC displays?
Yes and no. You need to set up HTML to specifically diplay a page on a smartphone in a userfriendly manner. Any correct page after modern
standard will display correctly, but the text may be extremely small. In some browsers you can switch between desktop view and mobile view. That
can show you the difference.
Den 08.01.2026 kl. 17.12 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:
Yes and no. You need to set up HTML to specifically diplay a page on a smartphone in a userfriendly manner. Any correct page after modern standard will display correctly, but the text may be extremely small. In some browsers you can switch between desktop view and mobile view. That
can show you the difference.
I forgot to mention:
Opera for mobiles have an advantage that I haven't found in other
browsers (those that I have tried). When you zoom, it reflows the text
so it is kept within the available window - except that some of it disappears in the bottom if you enlarge.
Den 08.01.2026 kl. 16.15 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
It must be the first line of your HTML page.
The validator would then help you catch the errors.
https://validator.w3.org/
If you use it with no doctype, you'll get a heap of 'errors' because it
then assumes that you are using the latest standard.
The correct test is whether it displays on every browser, as far as I am aware, all my websites do. If it were compliant with the latest
standards there would be dozens of browsers that couldn't display it.
Yes, and that is why I gave you a doctype to the old standard. Removing errors according to that could only increase the chance of succesfull display.
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote or quoted:
The correct test is whether it displays on every browser,
You could probably say the right kind of test depends on the
contract.
If you're building a website for a client and they're paying
for it, then you're basically working under a contract with
them, and whatever meets that agreement counts as correct.
Since we don't really know the details of that contract here,
it's hard to say much about it.
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote or quoted:Most of my websites are for people who wouldn't know how to specify a >contact. if they don't like what i do, they can look elsewhere.
The correct test is whether it displays on every browser,You could probably say the right kind of test depends on the
contract.
for it, then you're basically working under a contract with
them, and whatever meets that agreement counts as correct.
Since we don't really know the details of that contract here,
it's hard to say much about it.
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote or quoted:
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >>liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote or quoted:
Most of my websites are for people who wouldn't know how to specify a >contact. if they don't like what i do, they can look elsewhere.The correct test is whether it displays on every browser,You could probably say the right kind of test depends on the
contract.
for it, then you're basically working under a contract with
them, and whatever meets that agreement counts as correct.
Since we don't really know the details of that contract here,
it's hard to say much about it.
I see. But when I said "contract", I was also thinking of it in
a broader sense, like some kind of mutual understanding about
what needs to be done. That kind of agreement doesn't have to
be written down; it can just be spoken. Actually, it doesnrCOt
even have to be spoken - it can just be implied.
Anyway, I'm guessing what matters to you is that your actual
client and you yourself are happy with your work, less what
some outside critics might say later.
Opera for mobiles have an advantage that I haven't found in other
browsers (those that I have tried). When you zoom, it reflows the text
so it is kept within the available window - except that some of it
disappears in the bottom if you enlarge.
That has been the standard for HTML ever since it began.
The only webpsges that don't do it that way are those written by clowns who display a picture of the text instead of the plain text itself. Perhaps there are browsers on 'phones nowadays that fail to do this but Netscape Navigator 3.01 does it that way and that dates from 1996.
As long as the people who need to see it can see it and get the
information they want, I don't see the point of pandering to whizz-kids
who could make it so much more up-to-date and exciting (and irritating
to use and inaccessible to some browsers).
Rather irrelevant to AUE, but thank you very much for the interesting insights. If I were to write a website, I'd prefer it to be shown
correctly on every browser and screen.
Are the requirements for smartphones identical to those for tablets and
PC displays?
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:
I do have those skills, mostly. (For example I do understand the
mysterious two-factor authentication.) My big gripe is internet
banking. What idiot thought it was a good idea to present numbers
in a two-point font using an off-white-on-white colour scheme?
I don't often go to research seminars any more, but in the past I
saw plenty of PowerPoint presentations from idiots who thought just
that.
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
athel.cb@gmail.com asserted that:
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> posted:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't draw one. >>>>> Most websites could be written in plain HTML dating from about 2000, >>>>> they would carry all the necessary information, they would download
quickly and they would work on every browser.
Even HTML5, long past The Year 2000, leaves many needs unmet.
I would question whether these are 'needs' or just gimmicks.
On 08/01/26 21:27, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
athel.cb@gmail.com asserted that:
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> posted:
Den 07.01.2026 kl. 12.07 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
My point is that if you don't need to draw a line, you don't
draw one. Most websites could be written in plain HTML
dating from about 2000, they would carry all the necessary
information, they would download quickly and they would work
on every browser.
Even HTML5, long past The Year 2000, leaves many needs unmet.
I would question whether these are 'needs' or just gimmicks.
I have the impression that the quality of web sites went down as new
gimmicks were added to HTML. Visually they're better, if that's how you
judge them, but it's become harder to find useful information. As you encourage gimmicks, there are some (many?) web site designers who have
lost sight of the importance of information content and the ease of navigation. They've been indoctrinated with the idea that information
hiding is important.
A particular problem in Australia is government web sites to support the elderly. The (presumably very young) web site developers don't seem to understand that many old people don't have the skills to decrypt their information-hiding strategies.
I do have those skills, mostly. (For example I do understand the
mysterious two-factor authentication.) My big gripe is internet banking.
What idiot thought it was a good idea to present numbers in a two-point
font using an offwhite-on-white colour scheme? Yes, I mean you. One day
your eyesight will also start to fade.
I'm one of the guilty parties, as it happens. For bank account
reconciliation and for keeping track of my expenses, I use a program
that I wrote back in 1985. Lately it became to hard to read the screen. Lucking, as it was my own program, I was able to modify the colours and
the font sizes.
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 08.01.2026 kl. 16.15 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
It must be the first line of your HTML page.
The validator would then help you catch the errors.
https://validator.w3.org/
If you use it with no doctype, you'll get a heap of 'errors' because it >>>> then assumes that you are using the latest standard.
The correct test is whether it displays on every browser, as far as I am >>> aware, all my websites do. If it were compliant with the latest
standards there would be dozens of browsers that couldn't display it.
Yes, and that is why I gave you a doctype to the old standard. Removing
errors according to that could only increase the chance of succesfull
display.
Not necessarily. If the 'errors' are a failure to comply with a more
recent standard than the earlist browsers, 'correcting' them would
result in the webpage failing on older browsers. Can you tell me of a browser those pages don't work on, regardless of what the tests say?
Just this Thursday, Liz Tuddenham explained that ...
Snidely wrote:
Even HTML5, long past The Year 2000, leaves many needs unmet.
I would question whether these are 'needs' or just gimmicks.
Well, that depends on your customers and their clients.-a Touching on the example elsewhere of tables presented in more than one way, it isn't
that uncommon to need several different sorts to evaluate the informtion
in a table.
To use a non-browser example, a file list (on Windows, that's Explorer)
may need to be sorted on the basis of name, or on size, or on age, or on file type.-a Explorer would be extremely broken if you could not switch between those sorts, and there are many tables where even more ways of sorting are needed, and you may need to add columns or edit entries on
the fly.
Yeah, horses for courses, but many people find their jobs are made
easier by dynamic web pages, and many people who aren't doing work find their browsing more enjoyable with dynamic web pages.
Den 08.01.2026 kl. 16.44 skrev Silvano:
Rather irrelevant to AUE, but thank you very much for the interesting insights. If I were to write a website, I'd prefer it to be shown
correctly on every browser and screen.
Are the requirements for smartphones identical to those for tablets and
PC displays?
I have made a demo with the Poppy Records webpage. I opened the page in
a browser and took a screenshot. Then I zoomed the page and took another screenshot. I tried with Firefox, Opera and Chrome. I integrated the six images in an HTML-file where I have given the pictures about the same
size as they have on my mobile. The result can be seen here:
https://temp.lundhansen.dk/
The full screen image shows the problem of a layout for pc displayed on
a mobile.
I can't think of anything I could incorporate in my webpage that would
force the browser to behave in the way we agree it should.
Hey, is it any different from Excel users who pick the wrong the type
of graph to illustrate their spreadsheet analysis? Remember the 90s
when rainbow lettering was the goal of everyone with a homepage?
I think the issue isn't the tools, it's the understanding of design and
its purpose. I'm a big fan of Edward Tufte's series of books on
presenting information, althugh I'm neither a statistician nor a
designer.
My own websites tend to be oriented towards particular information and
for the results I'm looking for, and are often very basic. The first
web site I did was by taking over a site that was all HTML except for a javascript scroller. On my personal site, I didn't need that, so I
didn't keep it around. But it had a use on the other site, and it
stayed there.
When I eventually took an HTML course, one of the assignments was to
make a puzzle where things (blocks, like in Tetris) were dragged around
to solve the puzzle. Javacript, of course. This was just a toy, of
course, not even a real game, but being able to reorder things seems to
be a good tool for many purposes.
Yes, there are plenty of things you can do with just image tags and
form elements, but being to go beyond that is also useful. The thing
is knowing when a Single Page Application is appropriate, and when a conventional tree of pages is needed, and to be able to identify what
people need from each page.
/dps
Den 09.01.2026 kl. 09.33 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
I can't think of anything I could incorporate in my webpage that would force the browser to behave in the way we agree it should.
If you really want to make your pages look nice on mobiles, you need to
learn CSS, but you can (perhaps[1]) get some of the way by incorporating
the following line (unbroken) in your code in the header section:
<meta name='viewport' content='width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=yes'>
This page will show you the difference that it makes if you open it in
your mobile browser:
https://bertel.lundhansen.dk/
Note that I haven't done the extra CSS-work to make it fit properly.
[1] I can't guarantee that it will work. Your code has errors and is
written in old HTML.
Den 09.01.2026 kl. 09.33 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
I can't think of anything I could incorporate in my webpage that would
force the browser to behave in the way we agree it should.
If you really want to make your pages look nice on mobiles, you need to
learn CSS, but you can (perhaps[1]) get some of the way by incorporating
the following line (unbroken) in your code in the header section:
<meta name='viewport' content='width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=yes'>
This page will show you the difference that it makes if you open it in
your mobile browser:
https://bertel.lundhansen.dk/
Note that I haven't done the extra CSS-work to make it fit properly.
[1] I can't guarantee that it will work. Your code has errors and is
written in old HTML.
I've put that line in the header but I don't have a mobile 'phone to
check it [I do have one but it has physical buttons and only makes
'phone calls]. Would you be able to repeat your checks and let me know
if it works where it previously didn't?
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote or quoted:
I've put that line in the header but I don't have a mobile 'phone to
check it [I do have one but it has physical buttons and only makes
'phone calls]. Would you be able to repeat your checks and let me know
if it works where it previously didn't?
I've got a browser "Firefox" here with a menu option "Tools"
> "Browser Tools" > "Responsive Design Mode" that lets
you see what a page would look like on a phone. So maybe
you could check your pages that way . . .
Back in the 90s, everyone agreed that HTML just defined the
paragraph text, and the browser figured out the actual line
breaks for best readability.
Then the so-called "web designers" showed up with their
"pixel-perfect layouts". Their sites fell apart on mobile, so their
buddies at the mobile browser companies made up some fake page width
for phones, completely ignoring what HTML was supposed to be about.
Now everyone's supposed to stick this "viewport" line in their HTML.
I'm not playing that game. If mobile browsers mess up normal
paragraph wrapping, that's on them, not me. (I don't have
clients - just my own web pages.) So yeah, you won't find that
viewport line in my HTML. Not even in the output from my new
static site generator that I am currently writing for my own use.
'phone calls]. Would you be able to repeat your checks and let me know
if it works where it previously didn't?
I'll wait and see if anyone else has tried it. If it doesn't give any improvement, I'll take the line out again. Nobody has ever complained
they can't read any of my websites without it.
That's very heplful, I use Firefox but I hadn't discovered that feature.
It shows no improvement in any of the emulations from adding the extra
line in the header of the webpage.
I'll wait and see if anyone else has tried it.
Den 09.01.2026 kl. 11.16 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
'phone calls]. Would you be able to repeat your checks and let me know
if it works where it previously didn't?
It has made no difference, but the errors in your code makes it
impossible for it to work.
Open your page in a modern Firefox and press Ctrl-U. Then it displays
your code with errors marked red. Point to the error with the mouse and
a box with a little explanation pops up.
From what I've seen, how it behaves kinda depends on which
browser you're using on your phone, so some mobile browsers
might show your pages differently than that Firefox emulator.
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 09.01.2026 kl. 11.16 skrev Liz Tuddenham:
'phone calls]. Would you be able to repeat your checks and let me know
if it works where it previously didn't?
It has made no difference, but the errors in your code makes it
impossible for it to work.
Open your page in a modern Firefox and press Ctrl-U. Then it displays
your code with errors marked red. Point to the error with the mouse and
a box with a little explanation pops up.
I presume I need CMD-U on a Mac, as Ctrl-U did nothing. The only tag underlined in red was the <HTML> tag at the start - but no explanation
was forthcoming.
If the webpage works on all browsers, why do I need to bother?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:46:13 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,470 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
