Klarinet Archive - Posting 000546.txt from 1997/01

From: ROBERT SALTIEL <robert.saltiel@-----.com>
Subj: Re: I second your suggest
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 09:19:58 -0500

Dear Mark,

MC> RS> [...] was told that when the sneezy archive goes to frames
MC> RS> format, that those who are not frames-capable would be "out of
MC> RS> luck"
MC> Excuse me - please do just a BIT of research before inserting foot
MC> in mouth. All frames have been REMOVED from sneezy, and if you'd
MC> have had the courtesy to either visit the site or ask me, I would
MC> have told you. There's been a note to that effect for well over a
MC> month on the site.

PLEASE don't consider this a matter of discourtesy, Mark! I HAVE
visited the site, many times in fact. As a matter of fact, I have at
this point in time managed to retrieve possibly 75% or more of Sneezy's
contents <bg!>, excepting (so far) the composers, compositions, MIDI,
and some areas in which the webserver I've been using failed to return
requested data.

It is a consequence of the WAY that I access the site, that I
missed your note there -- this, since I use the index I saved here as a
checklist to send for items of interest; whereas when one browses
'live', one would usually enter the site through the 'front door' each
time, and would of course see your note. That, combined with what I
was told (Wrongly) about the site eventually going to frames (by a
frequent and respected poster to KLARINET who I decline to name ;-) is
what gave me this mistaken impression. I stand corrected, I am glad
for that, and I do regret having repeated that false information. I
certainly did not wish to raise your hackles, as I appreciate all that
you do to maintain that great repository of information for us! I
especially regret that this came about when the _primary_ reason for my
posting was to give helpful advice to those with email-only access -- I
truly did not know that when I remarked about 'frames', that I was
repeating misinfo.

MC> Also, when the site HAD frames, I explicitly coded it so non-frame
MC> browsers would work. I had 9000 frames capables, 1000 non-frames
MC> Some of the pages I have are XSSI or dynamically created. I hope
MC> the service works on those.

It MAY be that this is what caused the webserver to fail on some
pages, since as you state, all should be compatible with non-frame
browsers. I Am qualifying this as a guess on my part, as I can only
report on the result, and not the reason for same. If you want me to
check any pages in particular for you, I would be happy to do so and
report back to you if such information would be helpful. Of course if
the pages you refer to are created this way due to their inherent
nature, then it would be a moot point, and happily there is still a
vast number of documents that the service Can retrieve with no problem.

MC> site to help the 10% (and to make things easier to get at). Whoever
MC> told you that there were some things that were frames-only was
MC> downright lying, or if you had ANY bad experience, you never told
MC> me.

No, I did not mention it, as I was glad to get what I was able to,
and I am not really the type to voice a complaint or even a report of
difficulty if I feel it is a result of the limited type of access that
I choose to use. Mind you, I would have been in touch if I found
something that might have potentially affected more users.

As far as the listmember who told me what he did (and it is quite
something that his original foot-in-mouth statement went uncorrected,
considering its nature), I cannot but feel that he was greatly
mistaken, rather than being untruthful.

MC> I asked if there was any interest in setting up a mail service for
MC> sneezy on this list. Zero replies. Zippo. I figure it's a waste of
MC> my time. If that isn't true, then I figure'd SOMEONE would have
MC> asked me.

You are probably correct. It seems that most access the Web in
real-time, or, such as myself, have other methods that work
satisfactorily most of the time. But it Does point out your
dedication, which again, I truly appreciate and laud you for; I WOULD
NOT wish you to think otherwise!! I hope this clears it up, yes?

P.S.- I realize the 'reply-to' was to your email addy, but I really
did want to set things right.

P.P.S.- Should you wish me to test any of sneezy's pages on my end,
please do not hesitate to ask; I would be more than willing to help as
I can, or in any way you could use assistance.

MC> charette@-----.com - Firesign Theater
MC> (just a bit exasperated) <----- Please Don't be!! I feel just as
exasperated having been a vector for the original foot-in-mouth
occurrence :-* (sigh)

Kind regards,

Robert
robert.saltiel@-----.com

___ QWKRR128 V5.0B [R]