DecodeIr.html

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:43 am

mathdon wrote:I didn't do the multi-columning of the index as I thought it would make it much harder to insert new items in alphabetical order in future if tags had to be inserted at every third position in the list, and it didn't seem to be a big issue.

That would be true if the index were spread out sideways, but the way I did it, you can add a few new protocols without even needing to bother changing the columns, and if you've added a bunch of new protocols, changing the breaks isn't too hard.

Post by **mathdon** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:57 am

Here is DecodeIR.html with all known corrections. Essentially it is Vicky's syntax-corrected version with Rob's layout and the 48-NEC issues resolved. If anyone knows of anything wrong, content or layout, please say so.

Rob, why the background? To me it just seems a mildly distracting faint cross-hatch that makes me wonder if the rendering has gone wrong. There must be more to it than that?
______________
Graham

WagonMaster · Post by **WagonMaster** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:07 pm

mathdon wrote:Wow, including DecodeIR.html in IR.exe has certainly stirred up a hornet's nest!

Yeah, sorry for being the catalyst in this chain reaction.

mathdon wrote: It looks as if the problem must have been present in John's original.

It was. I didn't realize that until well after my first post, but I probably should have made it clear with an update.

mathdon wrote:Vicky has run it through her wonderful professional HTML tool and found many infelicities in the HTML code

Vicky's tool may be more thorough, but, FYI, there are all sorts of free HTML syntax/accessibility checkers available on the web. Here's a popular one:

W3 HTML Validator

mathdon wrote:I didn't do the multi-columning of the index as I thought it would make it much harder to insert new items in alphabetical order in future if tags had to be inserted at every third position in the list, and it didn't seem to be a big issue. I never dreamed what a Pandora's box I was opening.

Again, my apologies. But, as you can see with Rob's updated version, the readability of the result seems worth the journey, no?

When I first saw that page, with 113 protocols all in a single column, I actually thought something was broken in the page rendering somehow. That's why I made the suggestion that started this.

As for the pain of updating, nothing says that all of the columns have to have the exact same number of entries. Like Rob suggests, if the column counts eventually get too out-of-whack, a relatively simple "re-factoring" solves the issue. Personally, I think the improved presentation is well worth the effort.

The newest version works great. Glad to see this issue is all sorted out now. I'll try to stay quiet for a while now and not stir up any more trouble....

Bill

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:24 pm

Hey Bill,
Graham thought you wanted something like this...

protocol1 protocol2 protocol3
protocol4 protocol5 protocol6
protocol7 protocol8 protocol9

rather than this...

protocol1 protocol4 protocol7
protocol2 protocol5 protocol8
protocol3 protocol6 protocol9

which would have been harder to do and more time consuming to maintain.

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:31 pm

The Robman wrote:protocol1 protocol2 protocol3
protocol4 protocol5 protocol6
protocol7 protocol8 protocol9

protocol1 protocol4 protocol7
protocol2 protocol5 protocol8
protocol3 protocol6 protocol9

I would have done

protocol1 protocol4 protocol8
protocol6 protocol2 protocol5
protocol9 protocol7 protocol3

just to see if anyone noticed!

WagonMaster · Post by **WagonMaster** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:45 pm

The Robman wrote:Hey Bill,
Graham thought you wanted something like this...

protocol1 protocol2 protocol3
protocol4 protocol5 protocol6
protocol7 protocol8 protocol9

Oh, I get it now, thanks. Yeah, that would be horrible! I hate it when you see lists alphabetized that way -- it's so much harder to find what you want. That's why I said this:

WagonMaster wrote:vertically preserving the alphabetical order

(emphasis added) I guess I just didn't say that (and give the proper example of rendered HTML) early enough -- live and learn!

Mark Pierson wrote:protocol1 protocol4 protocol8
protocol6 protocol2 protocol5
protocol9 protocol7 protocol3

What can I say? You're a sick man, Mark.

Bill

Post by **ElizabethD** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:27 pm

(1) DecodeIR.html - Few words misspelt:
verient -change to- variant
varients -change to- variants
unsucessful -change to- unsuccessful ??
dispay -change to- display
does't -change to- doesn't
Pansonic -change to- Panasonic
comput Hex -change to- compute Hex
prorocol -change to- protocol
terminolgy -change to- terminology
seperate -change to- separate
seperated -change to- separated
seperately -change to- separately
Might be my Polish spelling corrections, but I think not.

(2) I saw another List out of bounds error. So far 100% (2/2) of my hits hover around Learning activity and 8910-6131. Can reproduce? Nope.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:29 pm

Mark Pierson wrote:I would have done

protocol1 protocol4 protocol8
protocol6 protocol2 protocol5
protocol9 protocol7 protocol3

just to see if anyone noticed!

Notice what

Capn Trips · Post by **Capn Trips** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:25 pm

Why is there no Pioneer on the top columnar alphabetized linked list, although you mention it in the NEC overall description and then subsequently list it as a NEC variant?

Post by **ElizabethD** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:51 pm

Can't answer why.
Temp fix so you can find it: add this line in notepad in the 3rd group after pid 0083
<A href="#Pioneer">Pioneer</A><br>
resave, refresh the browser.

Post by **mathdon** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:14 am

ElizabethD wrote:(1) DecodeIR.html - Few words misspelt:
verient -change to- variant
varients -change to- variants
unsucessful -change to- unsuccessful ??
dispay -change to- display
does't -change to- doesn't
Pansonic -change to- Panasonic
comput Hex -change to- compute Hex
prorocol -change to- protocol
terminolgy -change to- terminology
seperate -change to- separate
seperated -change to- separated
seperately -change to- separately
Might be my Polish spelling corrections, but I think not.
.

I plead NOT GUILTY! Ditto to the missing Pioneer index entry. I haven't revised John Fine's original, I've just added to it. And made it more publicly visible. For which I'm now paying dearly, by having to sort out all the things no-one's noticed in all the years it has been around!

___________________
Graham

PS I still don't know why Rob added the background, but unless Rob says why or anyone says they like it, I will omit it in the next, spelling-corrected, version.

Capn Trips · Post by **Capn Trips** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:50 am

mathdon wrote:
I plead NOT GUILTY! Ditto to the missing Pioneer index entry. I haven't revised John Fine's original, I've just added to it. And made it more publicly visible. For which I'm now paying dearly, by having to sort out all the things no-one's noticed in all the years it has been around!
___________________
Graham

PS I still don't know why Rob added the background, but unless Rob says why or anyone says they like it, I will omit it in the next, spelling-corrected, version.

Wah! Wah! Waaaaaaaahhhh!

Post by **The Robman** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:40 pm

mathdon wrote:Rob, why the background? To me it just seems a mildly distracting faint cross-hatch that makes me wonder if the rendering has gone wrong. There must be more to it than that?

mathdon wrote:PS I still don't know why Rob added the background, but unless Rob says why or anyone says they like it, I will omit it in the next, spelling-corrected, version.

I have been swamped at work and at home (with the kids' homework) so I have only been spot checking the forum at best, so I missed this question before.

I'm guessing that you don't recognise the background, it's the background used for the http://www.hifi-remote.com website, and was originally used for the old http://www.oneforall.com website. The DecodeIr.html page is part of the hifi-remote site here so I thought it would make sense to have it have the same look and feel as the rest of the site.

Unless I'm making a misjudgment, this appears much more important to you than it is to me, so I will concede and you can do what you want with the background image.

Post by **mathdon** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:31 am

One more try! Here is DecodeIR.html with all known corrections to HTML and English syntax and spelling. But please yell when you find the ones I've missed!

I have also removed the background image. Rob, you are right, I don't recognise it. I've never seen it before. It may be the background of the http://www.hifi-remote.com website, but it is nowhere to be seen in these forums and I've never visited that home page you pointed to until now. So I don't think much is lost in "brand image" terms by removing it.
___________
Graham

Post by **The Robman** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:46 am

The forums use phpbb software whereas the rest of the site uses regular HTML. I will continue to use the background image for the version of the page that I keep on the site though.