Netscape 7 Java plugin. (RH8)

Place to discuss Fedora and/or Red Hat

Postby Void Main » Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:36 pm

ZiaTioN wrote:Yes the align in the table data tag field did fix it for Netscape and Mozilla. Thankx for the input. For html they teach to do it as I had it previously (inside the iframe body).


Who's "they"? "They" must be Microsofties. I actually have taught HTML classes (although it was a long time ago, early '90s, and didn't cover the IFRAME). I made sure everything I taught was according to the current standards. Since you had the iframe in a table it makes more sense to me to have the cell justify the contents of the cell (sort of like in a spread sheet) and it is the way I have always done it. If you weren't using a table then you would either have to use the align on the iframe or use the "center" tag.

Now I have been running my pages through the validator using the "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">" line at thye top but I get a bunch of errors saying that a lot of the attributes I have in my table declerarions are not valid. Attributes such as "width" and height" which I know are valid table attributes. Could it be I am using the wrong DocType?


The most common error I saw was that you needed quote marks around a lot of things in your width/height params. For instance where you use parms like 80% you need to surround it in quotes "80%' (easy fixes). Most browsers will render it without the quotes but you may run into one that doesn't. If your code conforms to a specific standard and a browser doesn't render your code properly then you blame the browser. If your code isn't valid then it becomes unclear as to who is to blame. I think once you get your page validated you will feel a nice sense of accomplishment. :)
User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5705
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA

Postby ZiaTioN » Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:59 pm

Ok I changes the symlink to the other plugin in ns610 instead of ns610-gcc32 and it got a weird maroon highlight around the symlink and path when I issued the "ls -al" command to validate the link. I then did as you did and checked the "about:plugins" and it did not show up.

I then proceeded to do another force install and chose the ns610 path first this time with a fresh instal. But it got the weird highlightes text again and still did not show up. So I then did another force install and went back to my original symlink to the ns610-gcc32 path and the highlight crap went away and now the plugin shows up again in the 'about:plugins: page but still does not render the applete correctly.

Do you know how I can completely uninstall the plugin so I do not have to do a force install so I can start from scratch again?

Oh anf by the way what version of the plugin shows when you check your plugins page through your browser? Mine is "Java(TM) Plug-in 1.4.2_01-b06"

I am thinking the b06 might have something to do with something.

*Edit

Oh and as far as the validator goes I think it is a bit off maybe. It is erroring on things that should not error on. Like I know for sure there is an attribute "align" and valign" for tables and "bordercolor" and many more. These are the things it is erroring on. it says that these attributes are not valid for tables in the DOCTYPE I am using.

Am I wrong in thinking that these attributes can be used in tables?

Oh and the swish generated source code for my flash files is erroring too. Is this a common thing? I would think that this source would be valid but this validator does not seem to think so.
ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm

Postby Void Main » Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:40 pm

When you see red in the output of "ls" it usually means a broken link. That is you have linked to a file that doesn't exist (or target file doesn't have sufficient permission). See /etc/DIR_COLORS for more information. My About Plugins page shows "Java(TM) Plug-in 1.4.2-b28". As far as why you have to force install your RPM, did you uninstall it before trying to reinstall it?

As far as the validator you need to click on the "Explain" links. It is not complaining about the "align" and the "width" tags, it is complaining that the parameters to those tags are not in quotes. It looks to me like you can fix 90% of your errors by putting quotes (") around your params. Example, change:

size=+1

to

size="+1"

and

width=80%

to

width="80%"

As far as the "bordercolor" table param it is not part of HTML4 or any other HTML standard that I am aware of. This is one of those IE specific tags which means some browsers might recognize it and some might not, they don't have to to be compliant. Here is a reference:

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/ ... edef-TABLE
User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5705
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA

Postby ZiaTioN » Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:13 pm

Ok using the validator I got it from over 200 down to 35 errors. You were half right when you said a lot of them were just quoting hex color representations and such. The others how ever were stuff like a width attribute was allowed in a table decleration but a height was not. I had to remove all the height attributes from the table headers. A height is allowed in the table data though. I also had to move all my "valign" attributes out of the table headers and into the table row decleration. For some reason these placement values have certain places they need to be in.

I was always under the impression that all these attributes were allowed as table header attributes but I guess they are not.

The remaining 35 are because of some flash and java script I have which it does not like but that I know is right. I have a ,olot of errors like "attribute "ONMOUSEOVER" is not allowed on such and such line" when I know this is false. Another thing, I have 7 or 8 objects in a tables that are "listed" using the <li> tag but the validator says this is not allowed with my DOCTYPE.

I have set my doctype at the top of the htmk page as html 4.01 Transitional. What is the deal with this doctype not liking the <li> tag?

#Edit

And I have tried the plugin again pointed to the one you suggested and said that your symlink was pointing to in the ns610 directory. When I do this my browser will not even start and gives the following error:

[root@ToughGuy plugins]# /usr/local/netscape/netscape
INTERNAL ERROR on Browser End: No manager for initializing factory?

System error?:: Success


Why does each damn release of every distro have to be different? This is getting annoying real fast. I see that you have a different version of the same plugin though however that happens. Did you get yours directly fron Sun?
ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm

Postby Void Main » Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:57 am

Ok, I don't have much time as I have a race today and am going to be late but I started fixing your errors. Validate the following:

http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/cy/lyrics.html

I have it down to 2 errors and I'm not sure if there is a way around them because they are the embedded flash. You may just have to live with those. The other pages have to be gone through yet although I did change a couple of things in lframe (missing /HTML tag, etc). I also renamed your flash files so my ad zapper doesn't filter them out as advertisements. You may want to consider changing the names as anyone running the same ad zapper software will not see your flash.

As far as the Java, yes I got it from Sun, but as I said, I got the SDK and not just the runtime. I've never had the problem you are having. Again I'm going to be late so sorry I didn't have more time to help...
User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5705
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA

Postby ZiaTioN » Sun Oct 19, 2003 2:27 pm

Oh, yeah that page is easy. Not much html in it. I was refering to my main page (index.html). I am probably going to just remove the flash all together. It is causing me more problems than it is worth.

As far as you having the sdk and not the runtime, I have tried all. I have tried the jre for version 1.4.2_01, 1.4.1_05, 1.3.2, 1.3.1 and I have tried the sdk from versions 1.4.2_01, 1.4.1_05, 1.3.2, 1.3.1.

Along with all those versions of the plugin I have tried them all with the following browsers: Mozilla 1.0, Mozilla 1.4, Mozilla 1.5 Netscape 7.

None of those combinations work properly. I have read about this exact error being a known bug with the Mozilla firebird (or whatever it's name is) but have not heard it happening to the normal releases of Mozilla but I guess it does. I am not sure why your version of the plugin you said you had is not on the Sun site but I would like to try it. Like I said it seems to be that the only difference between your setup (which works) and mine (which does not) is the version of RH (me on 8 and you on 9). I cannot see this being the problem though.

I appreciate your work on cleaning up the html in my page but if I cannot get this java plugin to work the html will not matter because I will never know what the page looks like in either Mozilla or Netscape because I will be forced to trash them both and go back to strictly command line.

Oh well.......

*Edit:

I would like to know what release of Mozilla you are running because I remember you said you had your symlink pointing to the ns610 directory and not the ns610-gcc32 directory.

This would onlly work if you had an older version of Mozilla that was not compiled using the newest release of GCC (3.2). Here is where the problem lies. The newer plugins for java from Sun are suppose to come with 2 seperate plugins, one to support the older versions of browsers compiled under gcc version 2.9 and a plugin to support newer browsers compiled under the newest release of gcc (3.2).

As far as I can tell these plugins do have these 2 seperate plugins thus the 2 different directories. I am running netscape 7 and Mozilla 1.4 and 1.5. All 3 of these are supposedly compiled under gcc 3.2 which is why my symlink needs to point to the ns610-gcc32 directory. When I create this symlink the pl;ugin shows up under about:plugins but is super buggy. When I symlink to the other plugin in the ns610 directory that was compiled under gcc 2.9 the plugin does not even show up under about:plugins (naturally).

So my conclusion on all that is the the versions compatibility is correct and working, just the plugin is buggy (crappy). So back around full circle I would like to know what release of Mozilla you have so I can test this browser under the plugin compiled with gcc version 2.9 which resides in the ns610 directory.
ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm

Postby Void Main » Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:46 pm

At home I'm running the stock Mozilla 1.2.1 that came with Red Hat 9 and I usually click "Help"->"Release Notes" and search for any Java related information. I did not install java from RPM on this laptop but installed from the shell archive. A "java -version" gives me this:

$ java -version
java version "1.4.2"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2-b28)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.2-b28, mixed mode)


It looks like the version I installed has now been moved to the archive:

http://java.sun.com/products/archive/j2 ... index.html

I really don't know why you are having such a rough time with your Java install. I can't ever remember having any trouble with any version of Red Hat and Mozilla and/or Konqueror and I've been doing this for a while. I also run Mozilla on Sun/Solaris with Java and have no problem, also with two versions of Netscape and have no problem. Strange indeed... Have you thought of upgrading to Red Hat 9? I like 9 a lot better than 8. 8 was more like a ".0" release (buggier). Although I ran 8 on several machines for a time and had no problems with Java that I can remember. I also have run several different versions of Java BTW. Maybe it's something funky with the buggy GLIBC on RH8, who knows? Are you running the stock GLIBC or the updated 2.3.2 version? That's just a stab in the dark BTW.
User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5705
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA

Postby ZiaTioN » Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:59 pm

I think an upgrade to 9 might be in the near future if I cannot get the version of the plugin you have working with any of these browsers. I might also try getting your exact release of Mozilla to see if I can emulate your setup and see if it works.

#Edit:

Ok it looks like I have been chasing my tail for 2 days because of a dumb mistake on my part. The problem still however does not make since to me. Anyway I have been trying to install these plugins globally for all users of the machine by putting the symlink to the plugin in /usr/local/mozilla/plugins directory. However in order to install mozilla to that directory I had to be root. Also in order to create a symlink in that directory I have to be root. It is weird though because the uid for the MozillaFirebird directory in /usr/local is "8482" and the gid is ZiaTioN. Now this is the same for the plugins directory inside of MozillaFirebird but all the plugins inside this directory were installed by root therefore both the uid and gid are "root". This is where the problem is. When I am logged in under ZiaTioN and try to view a page with an applet on it it errors and says the applet is "notinited" or something like that. When I logged out and log into the GUI under the root account and view a page with an applet it views fine!

How can I change this to work for all users reguardless of what the uid and gid are? If I chgrp and chown to ZiaTioN will all user be able to use the plugins? This is also funny because both the flash plugin and player are also installed in the same directory owned by root but are usable by ZiaTioN. Just the java is not.
ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm

Postby Void Main » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:27 am

I suspect that your user does not have permissions to get to the real plugin (not the link). Open a shell under your username and try and actually view the contents of the plugin, both the link and the real file. If your user can not access that file then you need to change the permissions on the file or the directory leadin up to the file so that your ID does have permission. All directories leading up to that file should have "rx" for everyone. The plugin itself is not user specific unless you have insufficient permissions on the file or directory leadin up to it which seems to be your problem. You should be able to "strings pluginfilename | head", also the execute bit should be set on the plugin for all (755 should be a good permissions on the plugin itself, and on all directories leading up to the plugin, user/group is then irrelevant).
User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5705
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA

Postby ZiaTioN » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:48 am

Yeah I checked that and just double checked it now. Logged in as ZiaTioN (normal user) I can navigate all the way into each directory (where actual plugin is and where symlink is) and even can vi the plugin and all permissions are correct (or at least they allow me access under a normal user).

So now I am out of ideas.
ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm

Postby Void Main » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:43 am

That is really strange, I've never seen that before. It actually sounds like you do not have permission to access one of the libraries that the plugin is linked to. Use the "ldd" command to find out the linked libraries. For instance, when I do an "ldd libjavaplugin_oji.so" I get:

Code: Select all
$ ldd /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so
        libXt.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x40060000)
        libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x400b2000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40191000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x42000000)
        libSM.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0x40196000)
        libICE.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0x4019f000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)


Your ID needs to have access to all of the above libraries as well as any libraries they might be linked to.
User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5705
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA

Postby ZiaTioN » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:01 pm

Ok I have pinpointed the problem but still have no clue why it is the way it is. My user account "ZiaTioN" is the only account on the box that cannot render the java applets correctly. the user root can and my 2 other user accounts can view the applets just fine. So as I thought the permissions on the plugin are correct. Now I have to figure out what is wrong with my user account and why that would stop me from viewing java applets.

This thing keeps getting more and more weird. I have never dealt with anything as stupid as this before.

*Edit:

Ok I am done. I just deleted the user ZiaTioN and remove the home directory and re-created that user. For the life of me I will never know why just that one user could not view java applets but now everything is as it is suppose to be.

Thanx for trying to help me out, this is definately a problem I will remember for a while.

Anyway Firebird rocks man. I have not had a chance to thouroughly go through it yet hunting for bugs but this version (0.7) is a pretty stable release, and fast too. Loads about 4 times as fast as normal Mozilla ever did. Mainly because it is just a browser and does not come bundled with all the crap like mail client and chat client, etc..
ZiaTioN
administrator
administrator
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:28 pm

Postby Void Main » Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:02 am

You probably only had to delete your ~/.mozilla and/or ~/.netscape directories. Probably had a bad prefs.js or something similar.
User avatar
Void Main
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5705
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:24 am
Location: Tuxville, USA

Previous

Return to Fedora/Red Hat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests

cron