http://www.members.shaw.ca/grandmafaiths2/boogie.htm
I know you will enjoy this page as much as I did.
turn volume up…and scroll down
http://www.members.shaw.ca/grandmafaiths2/boogie.htm
I know you will enjoy this page as much as I did.
turn volume up…and scroll down
I went to this site using Firefox and couldn’t hear the music, so I opened it up in IE tab. Then I could hear the music. Why I wonder?
Ro Ro
I went to this site using Firefox and couldn't hear the music, so I opened it up in IE tab. Then I could hear the music. Why I wonder? Ro Ro
Crappily written web page:
Crappily written web pagemight of been FWF my friend-but the presentation was nice 8) i just started this thread something to enjoy if anyone found something we would or must ::) ??? of us would enjoy put it in this thread like the interesting thread but different of sorts.
I went to this site using Firefox and couldn't hear the musicand RoRo didn't have any trouble with my firefox-that's what i was using when i saw the site and listened to the music.
I was referring to the coding. The presentation of the page is fine, but the coding has major errors.
The page is silent for me in Firefox, but boogies in Opera.
The fox is a fussy beast and turns his nose up at a dog’s breakfast of code. IE happily tucks in, and Opera chugs down the mess, but it is really an unappetising meal.
I was referring to the coding. The presentation of the page is fine, but the coding has major errors.ok-at least it worked ;)
http://i9.tinypic.com/4r14o5t.gif
http://i13.tinypic.com/66j2lns.gif
http://i14.tinypic.com/4mx0lr9.gif
doing the boogie
http://i10.tinypic.com/6fqgilc.gif
The main body of the page is doubly obfuscated in two layers of JavaScript.
Unravelling this code into HTML reveals (along with a whole load more validation errors) the real problem:
BGSOUND is supported by IE but not Netscape.
Now, assuming you've thought through the consequences of your actions, let's talk about how to put a background sound on your page. Unfortunately the browser industry and standards committees have not settled on a standard way of accomplishing this. Netscape allows background sounds through use of the tag. MSIE, Mosaic, and several other browsers use the tag. You might at this point ask why you can't just use both and let each interpret its preferred tag. The problem is that MSIE sometimes interprets the tag in addition to (depending on the particular installation) resulting in conflict and ugly error messages. This is the sort of thing that happens when there isn't a standard to follow.With this lack-of-standards problem, the best to hope for is a situation that plays the sound in most situations, and in the other situations doesn’t play the sound and doesn’t give error messages. This can be accomplished using scripting, as in this example.
The code says this:
- If the current browser is MSIE then write out a <BGSOUND …> tag.
- Else, if the current browser is Netscape then write out an <EMBED …> tag.
- Then in the section, browsers that don’t understand scripting will see the <BGSOUND …> tag. Several browsers that don’t understand scripting do understand <BGSOUND …>. Also, browsers that have scripting turned off but do understand <BGSOUND …> will also see this tag. Of course, browsers that have scripting turned off but don’t understand <BGSOUND …> will have no sound at all. Again, that’s the price being paid for lack of standards. At least they won’t fail with an ugly error message.
That’s kind of complicated, isn’t it? Well, that’s the problem with this sort of kludge: you have to try to anticipate all the situations and avoid the nasty ones. Hopefully in the foreseeable future the browser makers will correct this problem.
http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/sounds/sounds_famsupp_18.html
Generally the coding does not make any effort to be cross-browser compatible or standards-compliant.
thanks for the in-depth analysis of the link and etc. FWF
what have i started now posting this thread ;D
where’s the super malware fighter polonus on this one ??? :
Leave it to the avast! team to dissect a website. Thanks for the chuckle, guys.
No avast (Alwil) team members in this topic, just avast users like yourself looking out for other avast users.
Interesting that, when the favicon is a Netscape one ;D really clever.
My only issue over the new update of FF v. 2.0.0.6 is that when you mouse over an emoticon, you no longer have the explanation text like IE 7.0 or the previous version. I use the latest “NoScript” extension, but I don’t think that’s the problem. ???
Ahhh…I sit corrected then.
No avast (Alwil) team members in this topic, just avast users like yourself looking out for other avast usershow true davidr my friend ;)
Ahhh..I sit corrected then.no problem 8) let's get back to the meaning of this thread i started....anybody have anything us Avast! Users have to enjoy ??? ;D
Hello FwF and drhayden1,
Cross browser compatible code is abound on the Internet, and it should be. But it also needs be secure. Sometimes browser coders freeze certain applications because of persistent bugs.
But code like this should be coded with the major browsers in mind.
polonus
let's get back to the meaning of this thread i startedi know after i pm'ed you-you would reply to this off-topic on my thread http://i11.tinypic.com/4kjicf8.gif ;D 8)
TWEETY AND SYLVESTER
Watch this until Sylvester catches Tweety.
(wait for it. It’s worth it)…
After Tweety is caught, scroll down…
http://i10.tinypic.com/6f6oydh.gif
This was an idiot test. How long did you watch?
http://i16.tinypic.com/4tgfsrm.gif
0-2 seconds - there’s hope for you
2-5 seconds - having a bad day?
5-10 seconds - are you maybe just a slow reader?
10-20 seconds - remedial classes are nothing to be ashamed of
20-30 seconds - it is recommended that you don’t breed.
30 sec-1 min - you probably can’t read this anyway. So why bother?
1-2 min - the equivalent of the average house plant
2-5 min - Good afternoon Jessica Simpson
5 min -1 hr - Dead people score in this range
1hr plus - Congratulations. You have a negative IQ. To find out what your prize is, watch bugs until he finishes his carrot : ;D
HEY, DON’T BLAME ME…YOU KNOW SYLVESTER NEVER CATCHES TWEETY
Well drhayden1,
This isn’t that off-topic really, well as it started out. But because of your choice of hopeless coded material, it became very interesting security wise. This page was not coded it was “knitted” together.
I really cannot see what good browser code could do here. But you have to see the security side of every posting to come up with this. This page certainly not going into the hall of fame code-wise.
polonus
let's get back to the meaning of this thread i startedi know after i pm'ed you-you would reply to this off-topic on my thread ;D 8)
I don’t think it was completely off-topic either as the topic title ‘Something To Enjoy,’ for me was impossible to enjoy as it doesn’t work in firefox for the reasons given and I wouldn’t use IE for general browsing.
This isn't that off-topic really, well as it started out. But because of your choice of hopeless coded material, it became very interesting security wise.
This page was not coded it was "knitted" togetheri understand your point damain and davidr ;)
I wouldn't use IE for general browsingme neither....
It works fine in Opera … and I watched it too ******* long! :o : ;D