250950 - glcq.com - Mozilla and Firefox don't display this url

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Tech Evangelism Graveyard :: English US, defect)

Description

[Paul Rubin]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

This page was generated with Micro$oft tools and works fine under MSIE.  It
shows up as a blank page under Moz 1.6, Moz 1.7b and Firefox 0.9.1.  View Source
show a lot of Microsoft-generated ****.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Click URL above
2.
3.

Actual Results:  
See a blank screen

Expected Results:  
Show images of some scanned pages as linked from the above page.  I haven't
actually seen the correct layout since I don't run MSIE.  I asked someone else
to try it in MSIE and he said it worked.

I think the person who created the page is not very HTML-sophisticated and
didn't do anything crazy.  He probably used some popular widespread tool in a
straightforward way.  That suggests there's lots of other pages out there
produced by the same tool, that might have the same problem.

Comment 1

[Bill Mason]

That looks to have been generated by MS Word or somesuch.

Mozilla will never make anything out of such a hash.  The user would have to
write a page that was something closer to standards-compliant.

->TE

Comment 2

[Chris Thomas (CTho) [formerly [e-mail] [e-mail]]]

Looking at the source, I see "conditional comments", a non-standard "feature" of
Internet Explorer, and various other tags I don't recognize ("v"?).  The web
page doesn't appear to be written in a remotely-sane style.  The person who
created it needs to get a better tool.

Comment 3

[Chris Lawson (gone)]

Amen to comment 2. The guy who wrote this page needs to get a real HTML program. There are lots of free ones. Heck, even M$ doesn't generate code THIS bad any more.

Frankly, I doubt this is worth the TE effort, so I'm marking this WONTFIX. If anyone believes this site to be high-profile enough to warrant a TE effort, by all means, reopen this bug and contact the page author :)