If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
Hello all,
Just now I entered an URL into FF 52 which resulted in a blank window. Asking for the sourcecode gave me the same blank window. Only after opening the "net" tab on the "Broser console" (ctrl-alt-j) window and reloading I saw that I got a 410 (gone) result. Question : how do I get FF 52 (on XPsp3) to show "failure" (non 200) codes ? Regards, Rudy Wieser |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
"R.Wieser" wrote
| Just now I entered an URL into FF 52 which resulted in a blank window. | Asking for the sourcecode gave me the same blank window. Only after opening | the "net" tab on the "Broser console" (ctrl-alt-j) window and reloading I | saw that I got a 410 (gone) result. | | Question : how do I get FF 52 (on XPsp3) to show "failure" (non 200) codes ? | Do you have a link? Usually if a site is gone it would be 404. I do't know if I've ever seen 410. It seems to imply that the server did answer. But I don't know how 410 differs from 301. I did see what you describe recently and found it odd. But now I'm struggling to remember what the domain was. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
Mayayana,
Do you have a link? Yes : https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/52477381/full Usually if a site is gone it would be 404. With all due respect, but what a website returns is *not* the issue here. Question : how do I get FF 52 (on XPsp3) to show "failure" (non 200) codes ? Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
"R.Wieser" wrote
| Yes : | https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/52477381/full | Yes, I get the same thing. In New Moon, as well. I wonder if this is some new way of doing things. I've only seen it a couple of times. Side note: If you're looking for good map data you might try Bing. I used to use Google for my own software. Then they started requiring a credit card. I switched to Bing. So far it's been very good. Though the REST API I use can't get streetview in Bing. I had to sign up for Bing, but no credit card was required and they don't send me spam. And actually, I think their maps are a bit better than Google's. Side side note: If you want to use winhttp for a REST API on XP you need to install the update for TLS. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
Mayayana,
Side note: If you're looking for good map data you might try Bing. I could have use for that. The OSM data I've got shows stuff that has changed more than a decade, maybe even two ago. I had to sign up for Bing, Alas, that is always a deal-breaker to me. Side side note: If you want to use winhttp for a REST API on XP you need to install the update for TLS. Huh, such a thing actually exists ? A few years ago I spend quite a bit of time searching for it, but could never find a download. :-( Do you still have the link to that update handy ? Not that it matters much anymore though, as I've figured out how to use FFs DLLs if I need an SSL connection (though I've never been able to find out how to verify the returned cert :-\ ). And I take it you have no idea about how to solve my origional problem ? Too bad. Could have used it. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
"R.Wieser" wrote
| API on XP you need to install the update for TLS. | | Huh, such a thing actually exists ? http://download.windowsupdate.com/c/...5e1240ce3d.exe Plus you need these Registry changes before you install: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\SecurityProviders\SCHANNEL\Protocols\TLS 1.1\Client] "DisabledByDefault"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\SecurityProviders\SCHANNEL\Protocols\TLS 1.1\Server] "DisabledByDefault"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\SecurityProviders\SCHANNEL\Protocols\TLS 1.2\Client] "DisabledByDefault"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\SecurityProviders\SCHANNEL\Protocols\TLS 1.2\Server] "DisabledByDefault"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady] "Installed"=dword:00000001 | | And I take it you have no idea about how to solve my origional problem ? | Too bad. Could have used it. | I got curious and looked around, but I don't find any info about FF not showing 410 errors. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
Mayayana,
| API on XP you need to install the update for TLS. | | Huh, such a thing actually exists ? [snip link] Thanks. Downloaded, commented and saved. I got curious and looked around, but I don't find any info about FF not showing 410 errors. :-) Its not just about that specific one, I do not see *any* of the "failed" status responses [1]. Just a blank screen. Which isn't all that helpfull. :-\ [1] the 4xx and 5xx result codes I mean. Remark: If you (or anyone) know of a add-on (for FF 52) that would be good too. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:06:58 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
Hello all, Just now I entered an URL into FF 52 which resulted in a blank window. Asking for the sourcecode gave me the same blank window. Only after opening the "net" tab on the "Broser console" (ctrl-alt-j) window and reloading I saw that I got a 410 (gone) result. Question : how do I get FF 52 (on XPsp3) to show "failure" (non 200) codes ? Regards, Rudy Wieser Not possible. FF will always display the HTTP body, if any. Regardless of the HTTP status code. It's been like that since Netscape. FF own error pages such as when the domain name is not found, or there's a site certicifate issue; are only for when the browser has not yet received a valid HTTP response. Chromium on the other hand, when a valid HTTP response is received, and the HTTP status code is 400 or greater, Chromium will display its own error page if the HTTP response has no body. However, it's no different than Firefox, where the behaviour is not configurable. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
"R.Wieser" wrote:
Mayayana, Do you have a link? Yes : https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/52477381/full When I go there (but I'm using Firefox 84.0.2), and then use Developer mode to look at the code for the page under the Inspect tab, it shows: html head link rel="stylesheet" href="resource://content-accessible/plaintext.css" /link /head body pre/pre /body /html The server returns a blank document. It's still a proper document, just no content inside of it. Why would the web browser report an error? It got the HTML code defining the blank document. As for the HTTP 410 error code: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/...TTP/Status/410 That the document was not available at the server is probably why a blank document got returned. It's up the server to decide what error status to return. For the resource not found, the server chose to return a 410 instead of 404. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/...TTP/Status/404 A 404 status code does not indicate whether the resource is temporarily or permanently missing. But if a resource is permanently removed, a 410 (Gone) should be used instead of a 404 status. Returning a blank document means whoever admins the server didn't bother sending back a more descriptive document for a permanently missing resource. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels Other than those contact channels, I didn't see an explicit link to report a defect in their server's behavior. There was a link to "System administrators" that might target whomever is their web designer(s). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
"R.Wieser" wrote:
Mayayana, Side note: If you're looking for good map data you might try Bing. I could have use for that. The OSM data I've got shows stuff that has changed more than a decade, maybe even two ago. Isn't the OSM database provided by their community? That is, I thought it was a crowd-sourced database. Collaboration means there actually have to be participants that choose to provide data for some areas. Wikipedia is an example of truth through preponderance. The same for OpenStreetMaps where volunteers decide what the maps will show. That is, truth is what most people say it is instead of actual proof. The geodata is what the registered volunteers (~2 million) say is it is. If none of those users re-survey an area, there is no new geodata to show. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
"VanguardLH" wrote
| When I go there (but I'm using Firefox 84.0.2), and then use Developer | mode to look at the code for the page under the Inspect tab, it shows: | | html | head | link rel="stylesheet" href="resource://content-accessible/plaintext.css" | /link | /head | body | pre/pre | /body | /html | | The server returns a blank document. It's still a proper document, just | no content inside of it. Why would the web browser report an error? It | got the HTML code defining the blank document. No. Look at the stylesheet address. FF only creates a skeleton to show a blank page. I don't have an explanation, but it seems to be locally generated. There would be no reason to send a blak page for 410. 410 means the page has been permanently removed. Either the site returns it's own page version for that error, or FF should show the error. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
Mayayana wrote:
No. Look at the stylesheet address. FF only creates a skeleton to show a blank page. I don't have an explanation, but it seems to be locally generated. There would be no reason to send a blak page for 410. 410 means the page has been permanently removed. Either the site returns it's own page version for that error, or FF should show the error. I would agree that if the server returns a 400+ error that the web browser should somehow report that status, but presenting it in the document window could confuse users as to is that the status returned by the server and the client generated it own document to display the status, or should the status be reported somewhere outside the document window to prevent thinking what is shown as the document came from the server. I'd like to see the status even on successful document retrieves. I don't want to bounce into Dev mode everytime I want to status. There are add-ons for Firefox to show the status (e.g., https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...-status-code/), but I would prefer something integral to the web browser itself and without digging into Dev mode or console windows. Could be the site doesn't want direct navigation into its subpages. That is, to get there means you have to navigate away from a prior page of theirs. Direct links aren't allowed. I haven't looked into this in-site nav permission thing for a long time. I remember you could do it using Javascript, but you could also use the window name (or was it document name?). A page could set the window name, and the next page checks if it's that name still (the window name doesn't change when loading a new doc into it). However, I think the window name was a Javascript attribute for the object, so you still needed Javascript enabled in your client. Obviously if Javascript were disabled, a page couldn't set the window name string to something the next page would accept as in-site navigation. I think the URL could also have args to identify you visited a web page and then wanted to hyperlink to the next page. I can guess why, but I'm not sure, why some sites don't want to permit direct links to [sub]pages, but it happens. I think one of the reasons is that a site wants to ensure you login, they validate that, and then you're allowed to visit their next page, like site abc.com wants you to login before you can visit their abc.com/booking.html page. Using PHP (on the server), your navigation through their pages can be tracked using $_SESSION, or it could be tracked by passing vars from login.php to booking.php. I think an old scheme was to use HTTP_Referer. I never dug much into this direct link blocking since I felt no need to violate their wishes for how I navigate to their pages. The given URL (https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/52477381/full) looks to be used by a client to use an API call on the server to access some resource. Okay, but does the API allow that direct access, or are clients supposed to process through some nav path to get there? Or is that URL even a valid URL to reach the raw geodata? Unclear is how the OP wants to use the geodata. Retrieving and editing the raw geodata requires using their API (they recommend using their Overpass API for read-only access). Embedding a map into a web page requires using their Web Framework instead. According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_v0.6, maybe the URL the OP used isn't valid. For URLs using API access, they say the URL format is: https://api.openstreetmap.org/... and not https://www.openstreetmap.org/... The syntax is also mentioned at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/...r_the_HTTP_API where the hostname is api or overpass, not www. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
VanguardLH,
When I go there (but I'm using Firefox 84.0.2), and then use Developer mode to look at the code for the page under the Inspect tab, it shows: html ... /html I'm afraid your FF 84 is pulling a fast one on you. Using a raw HTTP retrieval tool shows there is no HTML content. Why would the web browser report an error? Perhaps because any 4xx or 5xx HTTP status indicates (a) failure ? But if a resource is permanently removed, a 410 (Gone) should be used instead of a 404 status. And that is exactly what they have done (the resource is permanently removed) and do (returning a 410 status). IOW, the website seems to do everything by the book. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels Other than those contact channels, I didn't see an explicit link to report a defect in their server's behavior There is a "report-uri" in the returned HTTP header. Now, as we have ascertained that the website didn't do anything wrong , lets go back and focus on getting FF 52 to display a received 4xx or 5xx HTTP status please. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
"VanguardLH" wrote
| | Could be the site doesn't want direct navigation into its subpages. | That is, to get there means you have to navigate away from a prior page | of theirs. Direct links aren't allowed. I haven't looked into this | in-site nav permission thing for a long time. I see that sometimes. They often don't tell me, but there are sites that don't allow loading without a referrer. Or more often, they don't allow downloads because they want people to download from their website directly. I wonder if maybe API 0.6 might just be outdated. I know some of these OSS fanatics hate to get to 1.0, but .6 is silly. If it were really .6 it shouldn't be online. I looked into OSM awhile back, when Google wanted me to give them a chargecard. Their resources seemed pretty much useless to me. Only Bing seemed to be comparable to Google. Off-topic: Lately I've been thinking it would be nice to write a little ditty so that I could easily download weather forecasts and current radar in one click. But it turns out NOAA have completely messed up their site, using a crazy-bloated javascript tool to display hard-to-read radar imagery, and no longer offering simple images for download. I'd be grateful to anyone who might know a way I can use a REST API to just make a call and get precipitation images in real time as GIFs or JPGs. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
FireFox 52 not showing any failure-result codes.
On 1/19/2021 4:06 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
Hello all, Just now I entered an URL into FF 52 which resulted in a blank window. Asking for the sourcecode gave me the same blank window. Only after opening the "net" tab on the "Broser console" (ctrl-alt-j) window and reloading I saw that I got a 410 (gone) result. Question : how do I get FF 52 (on XPsp3) to show "failure" (non 200) codes ? I just tried it on FF 84.0.2 and just got a blank (white) page. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|