I finally found a free web server that I can live with.' YOLA '

My new site is at https://leroyspovstuff.yolasite.com/

The site has some old POV object and INC files along with Window programs.
Oh! and my old robots.
I took my old website and with a little work got it all on two pages.
(They only let you have 3 pages.)

It may have flaws in it. If so tell me about them here.

On another topic 'WebRing' I had my old site listed with WebRing in their
POV-Ray Ring. To make A long story short, I can't get in to kill my old site
or up grade to my new sight. And to make things a little weird when I was
at WebRing I found out the old site is number 1 in the visited and exited
to another Ring member.
 Has any one dealt with WebRing? And is still functioning!?

Have fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I finally found a free web server that I can live with.' YOLA '
>
> My new site is at https://leroyspovstuff.yolasite.com/
>
> The site has some old POV object and INC files along with Window programs.
> Oh! and my old robots.
> I took my old website and with a little work got it all on two pages.
> (They only let you have 3 pages.)
>
> It may have flaws in it. If so tell me about them here.

The usual broken external links, of course, due to passage of time. ;)

Missing resources/Gifs/Hfs.jpg for the Heightfield section.

Otherwise looks like a good transfer! You were busy. I remember the lipsync
thing.

> On another topic 'WebRing' I had my old site listed with WebRing in their
> POV-Ray Ring. To make A long story short, I can't get in to kill my old site
> or up grade to my new sight. And to make things a little weird when I was
> at WebRing I found out the old site is number 1 in the visited and exited
> to another Ring member.
>  Has any one dealt with WebRing? And is still functioning!?

Not for many, many years, although I was able to find my old POV-Ring ID and
password so thought maybe that was what I used for it too. Apparently not, or
same trouble with login if so.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> "Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> > It may have flaws in it. If so tell me about them here.
>
> The usual broken external links, of course, due to passage of time. ;)

I think xhtml - which I believe is now just "xml" had a feature to automagically
gray-out invalid/broken links.   I'd love to see people use more of that in
their web page design to reduce the amount of unecessary and
unproductive/frustrating clicking -
plus it would show the page maintainer at a glance how much of the page needed
updating.

Just a thought.  :)

Really nice work you've done, Leroy.  I've come across your page(s) in the past,
and I really liked and admired some of your projects.
Keep up the good work, and thanks for updating your page.

Post a reply to this message

>
> The usual broken external links, of course, due to passage of time. ;)
>
> Missing resources/Gifs/Hfs.jpg for the Heightfield section.
>
> Otherwise looks like a good transfer! You were busy. I remember the lipsync
> thing.
>
> > On another topic 'WebRing' I had my old site listed with WebRing in their
> > POV-Ray Ring. To make A long story short, I can't get in to kill my old site
> > or up grade to my new sight. And to make things a little weird when I was
> > at WebRing I found out the old site is number 1 in the visited and exited
> > to another Ring member.
> >  Has any one dealt with WebRing? And is still functioning!?
>
> Not for many, many years, although I was able to find my old POV-Ring ID and
> password so thought maybe that was what I used for it too. Apparently not, or
> same trouble with login if so.
>
> Bob

Thanks Bob for your help.
 To tell the truth I didn't even check out the links.
And I'll get on the fix for the graphics. I had plan to redo some of them any
way!

As for POV-Ring I might (after another week) sign up for a new listing.

 Thanks again and Have Fun!

Post a reply to this message

> I think xhtml - which I believe is now just "xml" had a feature to automagically
> gray-out invalid/broken links.   I'd love to see people use more of that in
> their web page design to reduce the amount of unecessary and
> unproductive/frustrating clicking -
> plus it would show the page maintainer at a glance how much of the page needed
> updating.
>
> Just a thought.  :)

Right now I don't know if my new server will allow "xml.
But it sounds good. I'll see what I can do.


> Really nice work you've done, Leroy.  I've come across your page(s) in the past,
> and I really liked and admired some of your projects.

> Keep up the good work, and thanks for updating your page.

Your welcome. It's nice to get words of encouragement every once in a while.

And Thank You for your help. Have Fun!

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.08.2017 um 16:04 schrieb Bald Eagle:

> I think xhtml - which I believe is now just "xml" had a feature to automagically

XHTML and XML are not the same.

XML is a generic "meta-format" for representing hierarchical structured
data in ASCII-ish text files. It looks very similar to HTML, but is more
strict in certain aspects. Most notably, in XML all tags must be closed,
whereas in HTML some tags are never closed. Also, XML /per se/ does not
define the semantics of the data; that's left to specific file formats
/based on/ XML. For example, the following file formats are all based on
XML (some wrapped in a ZIP archive), but each uses different tags:

- MS Office 2007 document format (`.docx`)
- OpenDocument text format (`.odt`)
- Visual Studio 2015 project files (`.vcxproj`)
- Scalable Vector Graphics (`.svg`)

XHTML is another such a format. It was an attempt to make HTML palatable
for generic XML processing tools, so that such tools could be used to
process web pages.

> gray-out invalid/broken links.

That would be beyond the scope of (X)HTML, and fall into the scope of CSS.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 25.08.2017 um 16:04 schrieb Bald Eagle:
>
> > I think xhtml - which I believe is now just "xml" had a feature to automagically
>
> XHTML and XML are not the same.

[x] check.

> > gray-out invalid/broken links.
>
> That would be beyond the scope of (X)HTML, and fall into the scope of CSS.

Well, I remember that I was able to do it back in 2000/2001, when I was working
on a project and wanted the automatic greyed-out behaviour. I had never even
heard of CSS back then - if it even existed.
It was a special something-html, and I just can't think of what it was off the
top of my head.

Amazingly, I discovered I had an archived copy of that project, which has
survived several moves and unimaginable IRL chaos, so perhaps this weekend I can
excavate it and see exactly what the heck it actually was.

Post a reply to this message

On 2017-08-25 12:17 PM (-4), Bald Eagle wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 25.08.2017 um 16:04 schrieb Bald Eagle:
>>
>>> I think xhtml - which I believe is now just "xml" had a feature to automagically
>>
>> XHTML and XML are not the same.
>
> [x] check.
>
>>> gray-out invalid/broken links.

This is certainly not XML, nor its derivative XHTML.  Such a burden 
would place an unreasonable burden on the client, not to mention making 
the user wait while the client checks all those links.  I've created 
pages in XHTML, and it certainly did not check my links.

>> That would be beyond the scope of (X)HTML, and fall into the scope of CSS.

CSS can gray out links, but it has no power to check whether or not they 
are valid

> Well, I remember that I was able to do it back in 2000/2001, when I was working
> on a project and wanted the automatic greyed-out behaviour. I had never even
> heard of CSS back then - if it even existed.
> It was a special something-html, and I just can't think of what it was off the
> top of my head.

It was probably a server-side feature, orthogonal to what flavor of HTML 
you were using.

P.S.  Back in 2000/2001, there were versions of HTML that /could/ gray 
out links (HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 Transitional).  CSS was developed 
around 1997, though the first browsers to take advantage of it, MSIE 3 
and Netscape 4, did an unfathomably horrific job of implementing it. 
(Microsoft rushed to market before CSS was even defined, and Netscape 
pretty much ignored the standard.)  By 2000, both browsers had halfway 
decent implementations, though Web designers were slow to take 
advantage, due to legacy use of the older browsers, particularly 
Netscape 4.  HTML 4.01 Transitional was a concession to developers who 
were skittish about CSS (and also to those who were lazy about their 
HTML, but that was a separate issue).

There was also a transitional version of XHTML, introduced in parallel 
with HTML 4 Transitional, although I don't recall how much obsolescence 
it would let you get away with.

Netscape 4 created a vicious cycle: it had more bugs than any other 
software I was aware of at the time, but because it was so popular among 
the users, Web designers put in a *lot* of work to keep NS4 from turning 
their Web pages into ersatz Picassos.  And due to the developers' hard 
work, the users never found out what a POS Netscape 4 was, so they kept 
on using it!

I've seen Web pages that use HTML 4.01 Transitional as late as 2015. 
Some are probably still around.

Still, regardless of the state of the art, it was almost certainly not 
the job of the coding language to check links.  I think you just lucked 
out on a conscientious server provider.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> > Well, I remember that I was able to do it back in 2000/2001, when I was working
> > on a project and wanted the automatic greyed-out behaviour. I had never even
> > heard of CSS back then - if it even existed.
> > It was a special something-html, and I just can't think of what it was off the
> > top of my head.
>
> It was probably a server-side feature, orthogonal to what flavor of HTML
> you were using.
>
> P.S.  Back in 2000/2001, there were versions of HTML that /could/ gray
> out links (HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 Transitional).  CSS was developed
> around 1997...

> Still, regardless of the state of the art, it was almost certainly not
> the job of the coding language to check links.  I think you just lucked
> out on a conscientious server provider.

I found the directory of files on an old backup CD, and the only non html
extension I see is shtml.  I believe the testing I was doing (using HTML as a
file-directory hierarchy navigating tool) was all local, so there was no "server
provider" - it was just my links to local documents or other local shtml pages.

Anyway.  That's what I was doing, and what I excavated from the archives.

Thanks for the feedback.
I hope you're OK after the hurricane, and things down there start to get back to
normal after what I'm sure was an _interesting_ storm.   :O

Post a reply to this message