Page Expired

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:07 pm

In firefox you dont do anything. It just blocks all the popups that you aren't gunna want. I maybe see 1 popup a week or so. It usually doesnt block any popups that you want either, and if it does you can easily specify them in the options.

There is also a great ad blocking extension for firefox called Adblock which allows you to block regual banner ads and crap from sites.

Alpha_Hazard · Post by **Alpha_Hazard** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:17 pm

well, so far I haven't had any problems. I can go directly to a post when I click on it in e-mail, which is something opera wouldn't do for some reason...

mckeed · Post by **mckeed** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:37 pm

Phade wrote:Hey,

But it makes a good excuse to promote a browser that is better than IE. Some people don't know that there are other browsers besides IE, let alone a number of browsers better than IE. Educating the ignorant is something we should do.

However, the get vs. post thing is not the answer. The "page expired" message is different from the "do you want to post information again" message. Why IE sometimes wants to tell you that the page is expired rather than re-pulling non-post pages is beyond me. I think there is a setting for it somewhere in the options because my IE doesn't have that issue when using the back button.

Phade.

I've looked and couldn't find anything that seemed to suggest that it would control that behavior. I have to ask though why it does it in some places and not in others. It has to be a result of the method/teqnique used in programing. On the contest calendar if you are on a month that isn't the current one and click on an event and then click back i get that error. Also on the search page you click into a video and try to click back. I guess i'll try to do some experimentation and see wha the settings need to be.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:37 pm

mckeed wrote: You shouln't be saying deal with it and switch browsers.

Why not? That's what all those IE-only webmasters told people to do.

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:39 pm

trythil wrote:
mckeed wrote: You shouln't be saying deal with it and switch browsers.
Why not? That's what all those IE-only webmasters told people to do.

Sounds like they need to be deprogrammed.

mckeed · Post by **mckeed** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:01 pm

trythil wrote:
mckeed wrote: You shouln't be saying deal with it and switch browsers.
Why not? That's what all those IE-only webmasters told people to do.

So you should repeat bad behavior?

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:12 pm

mckeed wrote:
trythil wrote:
mckeed wrote: You shouln't be saying deal with it and switch browsers.
Why not? That's what all those IE-only webmasters told people to do.
So you should repeat bad behavior?

No, the situation is different. We're not telling people to move TO one browser, we're telling people to get the hell away from one "browser" and use ANYTHING else.

I, for one, refuse to use IE because I think it's the Web browser analog of goat se -- loose, disgusting, repugnant, and a gaping portal to your system's insides.

---

Actually, in all seriousness, I do think "use-this-browser-for-this-site" is a bad idea, and when I build interactive sites I do try to ensure that I use standards-compliant code.

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:15 pm

trythil wrote:Actually, in all seriousness, I do think "use-this-browser-for-this-site" is a bad idea, and when I build interactive sites I do try to ensure that I use standards-compliant code.

Does that mean that IE screws it up?

mckeed · Post by **mckeed** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:24 pm

Kalium wrote:
trythil wrote:Actually, in all seriousness, I do think "use-this-browser-for-this-site" is a bad idea, and when I build interactive sites I do try to ensure that I use standards-compliant code.
Does that mean that IE screws it up?

In this case IE is being extra secure about what it will allow you to do. Even on the lowest settings it still complains. My main point here is that it only happens on certain parts of the site suggesting that it is a result of a programing technique rather than a bad browser. phpBB isn't coded in the maner which causes internet explorer to ask questions about what it is doing. The site shouldn't cause IE to to complain like this. We should make sure all browsers work, not just everything esle but IE. I personally like IE and don't want to switch and since i'm not using a minority web browser I don't understand why this isn't looked into. Any programing practice that causes 70% of a userbase to have a problem isn't good practice.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:26 pm

Kalium wrote:
trythil wrote:Actually, in all seriousness, I do think "use-this-browser-for-this-site" is a bad idea, and when I build interactive sites I do try to ensure that I use standards-compliant code.
Does that mean that IE screws it up?

Unfortunately, that is sometimes true. As part of my Database Systems final project, I built a Web interface to a payroll system. While most of it was driven by Java servlets, there were some bits of Javascript needed to make the UI nice. KJS/KHTML-based browsers and Gecko-based browsers seemed to handle it just fine.

IE blew up.

After much annoyance, checking manuals, etc, and running out of time, I figured "screw it, what I wrote IS standards-compliant, so fuck IE, because I don't want to hack around its deficiencies."

That doesn't usually happen, though.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic.