Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Why can I not see the output with MY IE9?

16 views
Skip to first unread message

richard

unread,
May 23, 2013, 1:42:01 AM5/23/13
to
www.mroldies.net/test3.html
www.mroldies.net/screen9.jpg


This is driving me nuts.
On top of how I am already.
All I see is a framebox and a place holder thing.
At the longtailvideo.com website, I see their players just fine.
What do I need to change on my settings so I can see the player?
FF9 and Opera shows the player just fine.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

unread,
May 23, 2013, 5:23:49 AM5/23/13
to
richard the sto0pid wrote:

> www.mroldies.net/test3.html www.mroldies.net/screen9.jpg
>
> This is driving me nuts.
> On top of how I am already.

Keep up the good work. You should have this page finished and ready to
release to the public in .. oh .. 2037 or so.

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

Doug Miller

unread,
May 23, 2013, 8:52:40 AM5/23/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:8d3rlq0alnry.75qygqmfzhot$.dlg@
40tude.net:

> www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Gosh, I wonder if it might have anything to do with invalid html...

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en" dir="ltr">
<html><head>

Will you *ever* learn to validate your pages?

> This is driving me nuts.

Driving you nuts is a short trip.

> On top of how I am already.
> All I see is a framebox and a place holder thing.
> At the longtailvideo.com website, I see their players just fine.
> What do I need to change on my settings so I can see the player?

Write valid html, maybe?

> FF9 and Opera shows the player just fine.

BTW, this isn't helping:

<script type='text/javascript'>

richard

unread,
May 23, 2013, 12:17:35 PM5/23/13
to
Heh, the validator said it was required.
Page validates now don't it smart boy?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

unread,
May 23, 2013, 1:07:22 PM5/23/13
to
richard the sto0pid wrote:

> Heh, the validator said it was required.
> Page validates now don't it smart boy?

Maybe so (there's so little to get wrong) but it is still nothing more
than a blank white page.

(Hint.)

Doug Miller

unread,
May 23, 2013, 2:29:37 PM5/23/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:1wzf6goz8x24z$.luujvfld...@40tude.net:

> Page validates now don't it smart boy?

Now that you fixed the invalid HTML, yes, it does. Do you still have a problem in IE9?

Doug Miller

unread,
May 23, 2013, 2:31:49 PM5/23/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:1wzf6goz8x24z$.luujvflds0c4.dlg@
40tude.net:
Compare these lines

<script type="text/javascript" src="jwplayer/jwplayer.js">
<script type="text/javascript">

to this one

<script type='text/javascript'>

and see if you can figure out what's wrong.

richard

unread,
May 23, 2013, 9:58:06 PM5/23/13
to
There is nothing wrong with that code. Asswipe.

<script type="text/javascript" src="jwplayer/jwplayer.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript"> jwplayer.key"edited";</script>

That's what you left out.

Denis McMahon

unread,
May 23, 2013, 10:00:07 PM5/23/13
to
Observation:

If you wrapped the jwplayer setup call in a function, and called the
function in the onload handler of the body element, then you could put
the jwplayer setup bit of the script in the document head, which is a lot
neater than having script elements in document bodies.

ie:

change this:

<body>

to this:

<body onload="setupVideoPlayer();">

and this:

jwplayer( "my-video" ).setup({ <-----many lines of data-----> });

to this:

function videoPlayerSetup() {
jwplayer( "my-video" ).setup({ <-----many lines of data-----> });
}

and then put all of this:

function videoPlayerSetup() {
jwplayer( "my-video" ).setup({ <-----many lines of data-----> });
}

after the line:

jwplayer.key= <-----some data here-----> ;

so that it is inside the same script element,

and then delete the script element from after the </div> in the document
body.

Finally, you ought to just double check whether the jwplayer setup()
method requires json style data which, unlike normal javascript strings,
specifies only double quotes i.e. "" as string delimiters.

Not that I expect you to pay any attention to any of this, as doing so
would break with almost 20 years of well established tradition.

--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com

Doug Miller

unread,
May 24, 2013, 6:55:57 AM5/24/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:1x14wxot74hi5.13ayed4zxlcaq$.dlg@
40tude.net:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:31:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:1wzf6goz8x24z$.luujvflds0c4.dlg@
>> 40tude.net:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:52:40 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> BTW, this isn't helping:
>>>>
>>>> <script type='text/javascript'>
>>>
>>> Heh, the validator said it was required.
>>
>> Compare these lines
>>
>> <script type="text/javascript" src="jwplayer/jwplayer.js">
>> <script type="text/javascript">
>>
>> to this one
>>
>> <script type='text/javascript'>
>>
>> and see if you can figure out what's wrong.
>
> There is nothing wrong with that code. Asswipe.
>
> <script type="text/javascript" src="jwplayer/jwplayer.js"></script>
> <script type="text/javascript"> jwplayer.key"edited";</script>
>
> That's what you left out.

You missed the point rather badly, I'm afraid. But I should have expected that.
>

Message has been deleted

richard

unread,
May 24, 2013, 2:51:47 PM5/24/13
to
are you implying then that "src" is required?
hardly.
other than that, I still see nothing wrong.
kindly explain your point.

richard

unread,
May 24, 2013, 3:00:17 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:02:14 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> In message <XnsA1C95AD7AAE...@78.46.70.116>
> Doug Miller <doug_at_mil...@example.com> wrote:
>> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:8d3rlq0alnry.75qygqmfzhot$.dlg@
>> 40tude.net:
>
>>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>
>> Gosh, I wonder if it might have anything to do with invalid html...
>
>> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en" dir="ltr">
>> <html><head>
>
>> Will you *ever* learn to validate your pages?
>
> Nope, it's Richard. He hasn't learned anything in the last 10-15 years,
> least of all to validate. All attempts to help him will be met with
> argument. Really, it's pointless replying to him, it's exactly like
> arguing science with a fundamentalist.

Right. Like then my page should not validate, ever.
Which it does.
The problem I am having with MY IE 9 is purely local.
While others who have seen the page see what I wrote with no problems.
One person said it worked fine on IE 8, 9 and 10 even.

Luckily, there are forums where this bullshit harassment does not take
place.
Yes I have learned a lot in the past 10 years.

But we all know, that YOU never had any problems writing code.
You just whipped it out with never once consulting anything.
Or making any mistakes doing it.

Do you know the story behind Napster?
The claim is, it was the guy's very first program.
I call it bullshit.
Nobody ever wrote such an intense program on their first try.
Ever!

Message has been deleted

Doug Miller

unread,
May 24, 2013, 5:25:14 PM5/24/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:9nkzqbsky0y7$.2xe00zvjb6p0$.dlg@
40tude.net:

Compare these lines

<script type="text/javascript" src="jwplayer/jwplayer.js">
<script type="text/javascript">

to this one

<script type='text/javascript'>

Do you see *anything* different?

And NO, I'm NOT going to tell you what it is. You *need* to learn to read what you've written
more carefully. This will be good practice for you.

richard

unread,
May 24, 2013, 6:08:09 PM5/24/13
to
and again, I am calling you a fucking jackass who just loves to take a
little item and play stupid mind games with it.
There is nothing wrong with the code.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

unread,
May 24, 2013, 6:12:23 PM5/24/13
to
richard the sto0pid wrote:

> and again, I am calling you a fucking jackass

And again, RtS faithfully alienates someone who is trying to help.

It happens nearly every time you get answers to your silly questions.

Doug Miller

unread,
May 24, 2013, 6:36:33 PM5/24/13
to
richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:fz7vu6msswq4.8qmvx6zabp0u.dlg@
40tude.net:

> and again, I am calling you a fucking jackass who just loves to take a
> little item and play stupid mind games with it.

See, this is one reason you get called "Richard the Stoopid", and one reason you deserve it:
you just don't understand that abusing people is -- to put it mildly -- not the best route to
persuading them to help you, now or in the future.


Jonathan N. Little

unread,
May 24, 2013, 11:53:05 PM5/24/13
to
<!ELEMENT SCRIPT - - %Script; -- script statements -->
^
*NOTE*

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/scripts.html#edef-SCRIPT>

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

richard

unread,
May 25, 2013, 8:18:38 PM5/25/13
to
It's working now.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

unread,
May 25, 2013, 9:03:24 PM5/25/13
to
richard the sto0pid wrote:

> richard the sto0pid wrote:
>
>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html www.mroldies.net/screen9.jpg
>>
>> This is driving me nuts.
>> On top of how I am already.

I think all the rest of us agree with that.

>> All I see is a framebox and a place holder thing.
>> At the longtailvideo.com website, I see their players just fine.
>> What do I need to change on my settings so I can see the player?
>> FF9 and Opera shows the player just fine.
>
> It's working now.

No, it isn't. test3.html is still only a blank, empty page, exactly like
your screen9.jpg demonstrates. <woot!>

(FF9 is seriously out of date.)

richard

unread,
May 25, 2013, 9:20:58 PM5/25/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:03:24 +0000 (UTC), Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> richard the sto0pid wrote:
>
>> richard the sto0pid wrote:
>>
>>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html www.mroldies.net/screen9.jpg
>>>
>>> This is driving me nuts.
>>> On top of how I am already.
>
> I think all the rest of us agree with that.
>
>>> All I see is a framebox and a place holder thing.
>>> At the longtailvideo.com website, I see their players just fine.
>>> What do I need to change on my settings so I can see the player?
>>> FF9 and Opera shows the player just fine.
>>
>> It's working now.
>
> No, it isn't. test3.html is still only a blank, empty page, exactly like
> your screen9.jpg demonstrates. <woot!>
>
> (FF9 is seriously out of date.)

strange. that page does not seem to exist.

Ben Bacarisse

unread,
May 26, 2013, 8:49:46 AM5/26/13
to
I've looked, and while I think I've seen the differences, I don't know
what point you are making. Can you help me out?

--
Ben.

Jonathan N. Little

unread,
May 26, 2013, 12:20:08 PM5/26/13
to
If you look at my post it will explain, SCRIPT element *requires* both
opening and closing tags.

Ben Bacarisse

unread,
May 26, 2013, 9:44:12 PM5/26/13
to
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Doug Miller <doug_at_mil...@example.com> writes:
>>
>>> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:9nkzqbsky0y7$.2xe00zvjb6p0$.dlg@
>>> 40tude.net:
>>>
>>> Compare these lines
>>>
>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="jwplayer/jwplayer.js">
>>> <script type="text/javascript">
>>>
>>> to this one
>>>
>>> <script type='text/javascript'>
>>>
>>> Do you see *anything* different?
>>>
>>> And NO, I'm NOT going to tell you what it is. You *need* to learn to
>>> read what you've written more carefully. This will be good practice
>>> for you.
>>
>> I've looked, and while I think I've seen the differences, I don't know
>> what point you are making. Can you help me out?
>
> If you look at my post it will explain, SCRIPT element *requires* both
> opening and closing tags.

Yes, I saw that (and knew it anyway). If that's the point Doug Miller
was making, it seems an odd way to make it: the difference we were
invited to spot was that they all share the same error?

--
Ben.

richard

unread,
May 26, 2013, 10:23:33 PM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:20:08 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Doug Miller <doug_at_mil...@example.com> writes:
>>
>>> richard <nor...@example.com> wrote in news:9nkzqbsky0y7$.2xe00zvjb6p0$.dlg@
>>> 40tude.net:
>>>
>>> Compare these lines
>>>
>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="jwplayer/jwplayer.js">
>>> <script type="text/javascript">
>>>
>>> to this one
>>>
>>> <script type='text/javascript'>
>>>
>>> Do you see *anything* different?
>>>
>>> And NO, I'm NOT going to tell you what it is. You *need* to learn to
>>> read what you've written more carefully. This will be good practice
>>> for you.
>>
>> I've looked, and while I think I've seen the differences, I don't know
>> what point you are making. Can you help me out?
>>
>
>
> If you look at my post it will explain, SCRIPT element *requires* both
> opening and closing tags.

And if you had bothered to look at my reply to his shit, you'd find that he
left out the closing tag which IS there.
The original code was edited before posting.

This is what he edited.
<script type="text/javascript" src="jwplayer/jwplayer.js">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
jwplayer.key="NIV";
</script>

The rules say that when there is no explicit closing tag such as with <br>
then the tag MUST include the closing /.
So it would be validated as <br />, not <br>.
<script></script> is valid.

I just ran it through the validator.
The code is kosher and validates.

richard

unread,
May 26, 2013, 10:30:19 PM5/26/13
to
No. He's being an asshole.
<script></script>
is the proper method and it validates that way.
Now think about it.
If it were <script />, then how would the script be activated?

Jonathan N. Little

unread,
May 26, 2013, 10:38:17 PM5/26/13
to
Except you manage to sill get it wrong, from your source:

<script type="text/javascript" />

jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";

</script>
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Robert Baer

unread,
Jun 6, 2013, 1:20:09 AM6/6/13
to
richard wrote:
> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
* looks good,works, no framebox.

> www.mroldies.net/screen9.jpg
* HostGator sez "ERROR 404 - PAGE NOT FOUND" (for the jpg)

>
>
> This is driving me nuts.
> On top of how I am already.
0 new messages