I've had it with this bullshit on 100webspace. The board is moving. It might take some time for the DNS to propagate, but when it's done, I'll post a reply to this thread.
If you can see this, the DNS has propagated and everything should be OK.
Report any problems that might the move might have created.
Second, I now have a useless account at 100webspace, and I want to set up an image board there out of spite. I'm taking suggestions for the funniest way to waster their bandwidth.
Guro is pretty funny to me.
http://paracelsus.hollosite.com/
IT'S THE WORST BOARD ON THE INTERNET
I dunno, try not to break too many laws.
Also don't post any pictures of faces that aren't upside-down.
The only law im aware of is about real child porn.
What other law is there?
Update: 100webspace's banners are REALLY retarded. They strip out the <!DOCTYPE> and <html> tags, add their own mess at the top of the page, followed by your own code starting with the <head>.
Their code is not contained in any <body>, it's inserted before the real <head> and <body>, it uses tags like <center> that have been deprecated since HTML 3 or so, AND after removing the <!DOCTYPE> browsers will render it in quirks mode instead of standards compliance mode, possibly breaking it.
I just tried to post 4x:
SQL connection failure
SQL connection failure
SQL connection failure
SQL connection failure
orz
'k its working now
for anyone who's interested in a horrible ugly hack to get rid of 100webspace's banner...
<span style="display:none;">
<html><head>
</head></html>
</span>Hmm, how about:
<style type="text/css"> center {display:none} </style>in your <head> section ?
I like these. I was thinking of putting in some Javascript that drops the first element from the DOM, but these work too. >>12 is especially tasty.
Would <!-- <html><head></head></html> --> work?
How about this?
<![CDATA[ > <html><head></head></html> ]]>partition to add an <justignorethisshit> tag to xhtml
Actually, that's what <![CDATA[ ]]> is.
>>17
except that the w3c validator complains about it, so it's not really ignoring it...
Well, <![CDATA[ ]]> is only valid in XML, so the page has to be valid XHTML for it to be accepted. Which is kind of TRICKY when the bloody server strips out the doctype... sigh.
>>19
the server doesn't strip out the doctype ( http://hotaru.freelinuxhost.com/ )...
<![IGNORE[ blah ]]> works in HTML 4.01 as well as XHTML, as far as I know.
Why are you using XHTML anyway? It's parsed as HTML 4.01 unless if you're sending it as application/xml+xhtml, which breaks IE.
>Why are you using XHTML anyway?
because i want to.
>It's parsed as HTML 4.01 unless if you're sending it as application/xml+xhtml,
it should be parsed as XHTML, since that's what the doctype says it is.
>which breaks IE.
IE is already broken.
anyway... i did get it to validate (now as XHTML 1.1) using <![IGNORE[ ]]>, but the css validator apparently doesn't like it...
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhotaru.freelinuxhost.com%2F
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhotaru.freelinuxhost.com%2F
> it should be parsed as XHTML, since that's what the doctype says it is.
Firefox says: text/html
And you shouldn't be sending XHTML as text/html, c.f.
And you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Writing XHTML and sending it as text/html is a good way to maximize compatibility both with new and old browsers - old browsers can read XHTML 1.0 Transistional just fine, and newer, limited browsers that can only read XHTML work just fine too.
Now, sending any other version than XHTML 1.0 Transitional as text/html is technically not standards-compliant, but 1.0 Transitional is specifically designed for backwards and forwards compatibility. This essay boils down to two things:
In summary: 100% wankery. In an ideal world we'd all be sending XHTML 2.0 with correct mime types and browsers would handle it perfectly. Sadly, we live in the real world and do whatever works best. So we send XHTML 1.0 Transitional as text/html, and it works everywhere, because browsers are built to handle this.
> no current browsers use an SGML parser.
emacs-w3
Also Mozilla, in the future.
Nobody seems to care about that bug, and it probably never will get implemented since it would break lots of pages, exactly because of XHTML. And nobody uses shorttags anyway, because they're not supported.
maybe this could help ;)
this.ie5=(this.ver.indexOf("MSIE 5")>-1 && this.dom)?1:0; this.ie4=(document.all && !this.dom)?1:0; this.ns5=(this.dom && parseInt(this.ver) >= 5) ?1:0; this.ns4=(document.layers && !this.dom)?1:0; this.bw=(this.ie5 || this.ie4 || this.ns4 || this.ns5); return this; } //------------------------------------------------- function check_banner(){ var bw = new check_browser(); var PageWidth = (bw.ns4 || bw.ns5) ? innerWidth : document.body.offsetWidth - 20; var PageHeight = (bw.ns4 || bw.ns5) ? innerHeight : document.body.offsetHeight - 20; if (parent && (PageWidth < 300 || PageHeight < 200)) { var el = document.getElementById('1217655414'); el.style.display = "none"; } } //------------------------------------------------- function banner_links_sh(isc){ var el = document.getElementById('banner_links'); if(el.style.display=='none') el.style.display = 'block'; else{ if(!isc) return true; el.style.display = 'none'; } return true; } //------------------------------------------------- function google_ad_request_done(google_ads) { if (google_ads.length < 1 ) return; var colspana = (google_ads.length<3)?3:google_ads.length; document.write(""); document.write(""); if (google_ads[0].type == 'text') { for(i = 0; i < google_ads.length; ++i) { document.write(""); } */ document.write(""); } if (google_ads[0].type == 'image') { document.write(""); } document.write ("
"); if (google_info.feedback_url) { document.write("Ads by Google"); } else { document.write("Ads By Google"); } document.write("
" + ""+ "
" + google_ads[i].line1 + "
" + "
"+google_ads[i].line2 + "
" + google_ads[i].line3 + "
" + "" + google_ads[i].visible_url + "
"); } /* if(google_ads.length < 3 ){ document.write("
"+ ""+ "
"+ ""+ "Google"+ ""+ ""+ ""+ ""+ ""+ ""+ ""+ ""+ ""+ "
"+ "
" + "" + "
"); } //------------------------------------------------- function ss(w,id) {window.status = w;return true;} //------------------------------------------------- function cs(){window.status='';} //------------------------------------------------- function ca(a) {top.location.href=document.getElementById(a).href;} //------------------------------------------------- function ga(o,e) {if (document.getElementById) {a=o.id.substring(1);p = "";r = "";g = e.target;if (g) {t = g.id;f = g.parentNode;if (f) {p = f.id;h = f.parentNode;if (h)r = h.id;}}else {h = e.srcElement;f = h.parentNode;if (f) p = f.id;t = h.id;}if (t==a || p==a || r==a)return true;top.location.href=document.getElementById(a).href;}} //------------------------------------------------- window.onload = check_banner; -->
Ok, this "WebWarper" thing, whatever it is, is now banned.