.php help?

[SnowDemon]

sorry for double posting like this, but i can't modify...

yes, that's it. All I'm getting is a .php page.

I meant, that yes, all I'm downloading is a .php page.

[Zarxrax]

Apparently no one bothered to do a search, so I took the liberty and found this thread which sounds like it had a similar issue:
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... hp?t=32682

Things I would suggest:
Don't use MSN browser, whatever that is.
Use Internet Explorer, or a better browser like Firefox.
Make sure you left click the file to download, rather than right clicking and choosing save as.
If a screen tells you that you are downloading too soon after your last attempt, you need to wait 60 seconds and then try again.

[trythil]

By the way, Matt, the PHP could be causing errors. It is indeed processed server-side, but that doesn't exclude such things as incorrect header generation or whatnot.

I'm sorry, what? What do you mean by "incorrect header generation"? What headers do you think the PHP is generating and how on earth could they be "incorrect"?

The ONLY way that there could be a problem is if the PHP is designed to output something that the browser can't handle, for example jscript code. The actual PHP code itself CANNOT BE THE PROBLEM, it is wholly server side. So much so that there is no concievable way that a client could ever even see a single line of it's code (which makes it kinda nice for security purposes).

You clearly haven't worked very often with PHP ;)

PHP scripts can be written to generate any HTTP headers that you want them to output. That's how you get them to output HTML, PNGs, GIFs, or, in this case, binaries.

[SnowDemon]

Ok, thanks a lot Zarxrax and everyone else.

[Wheee_It's_Me!]

You clearly haven't worked very often with PHP

Oh really?

Cause uh:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/npindex/index.php

Last I checked I was one of the only people to ever find a way to make PHP work like DHTML. If you pay real close attention you'll notice that none of the images ever reloads, only the data content. Even further you'll also notice that the page never changes either. A fully dynamic site with over 3mb of text data content that works off only one page.

So how does it work? Pretty complex, it uses an iframe and a combination of hidden layers and form redirects. It actually takes information out of the database and turns it into button submits that relay data to drop down boxes on the hidden layers, that way I can avoid using those drab lil drop down boxes that can't even be forcibly altered using CSS.

PHP scripts can be written to generate any HTTP headers that you want them to output. That's how you get them to output HTML, PNGs, GIFs, or, in this case, binaries.

It's so nice that you've suddenly felt the need to clarify with "HTTP headers" instead of just "headers", I thought you were talking about shit like DTD or Meta tags, which I can't see why you would ever need them to be variable (unless maybe you were trying to do some stuff with making dynamic PHP).

Although even with HTTP headers I don't much see the point, maybe the location tag *might* come in handy...although even then you could just use a standard HTML redirect, it'd be the same difference. Certainly I can't see what the point in making them variable through PHP code would be.

Oh and BTW, I know for a fact that you nor anyone else in this community has a very firm grasp of HTTP headers, cause uh, if you did, I wouldn't ever be able to access anything from anon proxy servers. *shrugs*

BTW, what have you done with PHP lately? Got any interesting sites?

[derobert]

A fully dynamic site with over 3mb of text data content that works off only one page.

Which the first thing that happens when you visit it is that it spews 'this site won't work in your browser'. That's real nice. And the really bad violations of the web architecture model, that's nice too.

[Wheee_It's_Me!]

Which the first thing that happens when you visit it is that it spews 'this site won't work in your browser'.

It was specifically designed for IE and a resolution of 1024x768. At some point I may create an alternate version for 800x600 res, however I don't have any immediate plans to make it cross compatible, there's no reason to, especially considering that over 90% of the people who visit my sites are using IE.

That's real nice.

If you haven't the cognitive capacity to load IE on your computer in order to visit my websites, then you probably shouldn't be visiting them at all. You wanna use Firefox, Nutscrape, Opera, etc as your primary browser, hey that's peachy, but if you wanna visit my sites and see them as I intended them to be seen, use IE...or don't...as I said, I don't much care.

And the really bad violations of the web architecture model, that's nice too.

Regarding...what? You shouldn't be able to tell what's violating what as I specifically made a point NOT to include DTD tags (my sites are all built to run perfectly in IEs quirk mode so they don't need them). I could leave the DTD tags in, but why should I make it easy for anyone else to run my urls through some HTML validator? Much less of a security risk you know.

[derobert]

especially considering that over 90% of the people who visit my sites are using IE.

Only 90%? That's rather amazing, considering the site doesn't work except in IE. (I won't address the issue of drawing conclusions from a statistical sample of 1, of course).

If you haven't the cognitive capacity to load IE on your computer in order to visit my websites, then you probably shouldn't be visiting them at all.

I'm going to have to agree fully with this statement. I mean, the cognitive capacity to load --- and use --- a browser which has less features than the competition, and many more secury issues than the competition must be quite low. I'll be happy to cede the point that unless you are stupid, don't visit my site.

[About really bad violations of the web architecture model] Regarding...what? You shouldn't be able to tell what's violating what as I specifically made a point NOT to include DTD tags (my sites are all built to run perfectly in IEs quirk mode so they don't need them). I could leave the DTD tags in, but why should I make it easy for anyone else to run my urls through some HTML validator.

Well, the most obvious violation is in the same way that FRAMESETs were; they both violate Axiom 0a: "Any resource of significance should be given a URI."

No one can link into your site. No one can bookmark parts of your site. Etc. You should review http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Overview.html

Much less of a security risk you know.

How exactly is running your site through an HTML validator a security risk, unless you refer to the security of your overinflated ego?

[Wheee_It's_Me!]

Only 90%? That's rather amazing, considering the site doesn't work except in IE. (I won't address the issue of drawing conclusions from a statistical sample of 1, of course).

First of all child, the 90% figure isn't related directly to the NP Index site, it's actually a statistic taken from my client sites (which are fully cross compatible) from the eXTReMe Tracker stats.

I'm going to have to agree fully with this statement. I mean, the cognitive capacity to load --- and use --- a browser which has less features than the competition, and many more secury issues than the competition must be quite low. I'll be happy to cede the point that unless you are stupid, don't visit my site.

Internet Explorer has just as many exclusive features as Nutscrape or any other browser. For example Nutscrape supports PNG alpha transparencies and IE does not, but then IE supports CSS shadow tags and Nutscrape doesn't.

No matter what the browser there are always some things that it can do exclusively that some other browser can't. There is NO SUCH THING as a fully compatible web browser. The fact that you think so proves just how much you don't know about the Internet.

Furthermore, of COURSE IE is more prone to security risks, what part of NINTY PERCENT didn't you grasp? What do you think hackers sit around and think up ways to fuckup a browser than only 10% of the net populous is using? Where is the logic in THAT? And coincidentally, any browser that works off Mozilla's source code would actually be EASIER to target than IE, simply because the source code is freely available. Much easier to find exploits and all like that when you see the source. However again, security issues have less to do with pure technology than they have to do with what's popular. Again, I wouldn't expect a novice like you to even be able to grasp such a concept.

Well, the most obvious violation is in the same way that FRAMESETs were; they both violate Axiom 0a: "Any resource of significance should be given a URI."

SHOULD, child, the key word is SHOULD, not ALWAYS.

No one can link into your site.

How is that a bad thing?

No one can bookmark parts of your site. Etc. You should review http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Overview.html

Again, how is that a bad thing? I specifically designed the site so that drooling little morons couldn't just hop in, steal and start parroting all my hard work like it's their own. Do you have any idea how long it took to actually go through every single freakin volume of Nintendo Power to GET all that data in the first place? o_O

How exactly is running your site through an HTML validator a security risk, unless you refer to the security of your overinflated ego?

*shakes head*

Go into one of the hacking newsgroups and ask that question, I'm done humoring your naivete.

[paizuri]

I'm sure SnowDemon is SO much closer to figuring out his/her downloading problem by your arguing over some crappy-looking website but I'm locking this thread because it's getting a bit on the flamey side. Take it to PMs or e-mails if you want to continue your discussion.