Jump to content

Sound In Cache-pages Doesn't Work Anymore...


DanPan

Recommended Posts

I've a question:

 

I've some cache-pages where i use some background sound. :laughing:

 

Today i've noticed that when i "edit listing" the line <bgsound src="xxx" loop="xx"> disappears from the HTML code! (also if you modify nothing in "long description" field) ;)

 

However this pages worked well when they're published @ gc.com.

 

Do I something wrong?

or has it been no longer allowed to use sounds as background and will be filtered?

 

Greetings from Belgium,

DanPan

Link to post

It looks like Jeremy finally hooked in HTML-Tidy. It's also stripping background images out (of course you can still use the separate "Background Image URL" field).

 

Thanks, Jeremy! It's about time! ;)

Link to post

Yay!!!!

 

This will be very helpful to paperless cachers, as well. Those who use Plucker may be aware that it refuses to load pages with malformed HTML. Frustrating when you get out to a cache site and the page Just Plain Isn't There.

 

Not smarmy, Jeremy. Not smarmy at all. [;)]

Link to post

Yes, thank you. This is fewer HTML lessons I have to give and less time spent adding workarounds in code (mind and others') for really icky HTML.

 

Now I just have to trick the offenders into editing their pages. :-)

Link to post
I've a question:

 

I've some cache-pages where i use some background sound. :laughing:

 

Today i've noticed that when i "edit listing" the line <bgsound src="xxx" loop="xx"> disappears from the HTML code! (also if you modify nothing in "long description" field) ;)

 

However this pages worked well when they're published @ gc.com.

 

Do I something wrong?

or has it been no longer allowed to use sounds as background and will be filtered?

 

Greetings from Belgium,

DanPan

The ONLY thing sound on webpages does is to ANNOY others! I'm glad the site has stripped such carp off of the cache pages.

 

If I want to listen to your music, I'll roll my windows down when sitting next to you in traffic. Oh wait, it's loud enough with my windows up :laughing:

Link to post

That's a groovy idead, Lep as I'm probably one of the few that credibly could play that card!

 

"I got bored with the 10 GPSes I had and the challenge of 50 in a day was fading, so I decided to take up surveying..."

Link to post

Well - I don't like sounds on cache-pages either but what html-tidy does to my descriptions is just a piece of crap. I know what I am doing ...

 

... sorry I don't like this "feature" at all.

Link to post

I just looked at the source code of a random cache page. There's a form tag and an input tag before the html tag:

 

<form name="Form1" method="post" action="cache_details.aspx?guid=..." id="Form1">
<input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATE" value="..." />

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<HEAD>

 

Is this allowed under stricter rules? ;)

 

Cornix

Link to post
Well - I don't like sounds on cache-pages either but what html-tidy does to my descriptions is just a piece of crap. I know what I am doing ...

 

... sorry I don't like this "feature" at all.

Ever heard of KISS?

 

Keep it simple, stupid!

 

Jan

Link to post
I just looked at the source code of a random cache page. There's a form tag and an input tag before the html tag:

 

<form name="Form1" method="post" action="cache_details.aspx?guid=..." id="Form1">
<input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATE" value="..." />

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<HEAD>

 

Is this allowed under stricter rules?  ;)

 

Cornix

Well, HTML validators I tried think that's an error...

 

Found an extra and/or out of place document type declaration (<!DOCTYPE ... >). Every HTML and XHTML document should have one and only one document type declaration, and it should normally be the first line of the document. An exception is for XML documents where the first line is normally the XML declaration (<?xml ... >) and the second line is the document type declaration.
Link to post
I just looked at the source code of a random cache page. There's a form tag and an input tag before the html tag:

 

<form name="Form1" method="post" action="cache_details.aspx?guid=..." id="Form1">
<input type="hidden" name="__VIEWSTATE" value="..." />

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<HEAD>

 

Is this allowed under stricter rules? :rolleyes:

 

Cornix

That has to be something recent. I think I would have noticed such a glaring HTML error before. I went and looked at a random cache page and saw the same thing. It must be a page generation error.

 

--Marky

Link to post

How recent is "recent". I noticed it maybe a month ago when I was working on some things. I think has something to do with the "interesting" way you navigate from page to page. The "__VIEWSTATE" value seems to hold a lot of info about what's going on. But it really shouldn't be before the opening HTML tag.

 

As for the OP, sound never really bothered me. My speakers are usually turned down until I want to hear something. But I can understand wanting to strip out and clean up the user entered HTML. It is actually surprising that HTML is allowed at all. Such a powerful tool in the hands of a novice can have very bad results.

 

(Typo)

Edited by mini cacher
Link to post
That has to be something recent. I think I would have noticed such a glaring HTML error before. I went and looked at a random cache page and saw the same thing. It must be a page generation error.

 

--Marky

You're right. I'm not sure when that happened. I'll look into it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Link to post

Speaking of _VIEWSTATE (and we were, weren't we?): Jeremy, do you encrypt it? Has this caused any trouble in countries where encryption is, um, frowned upon? I know this is slightly OT, but I have been discussing this with some people who claim that nobody would ever encrypt _VIEWSTATE.

Link to post
Speaking of _VIEWSTATE (and we were, weren't we?): Jeremy, do you encrypt it? Has this caused any trouble in countries where encryption is, um, frowned upon? I know this is slightly OT, but I have been discussing this with some people who claim that nobody would ever encrypt _VIEWSTATE.

No. I believe it is base64 encoded. I have decoded it in the past for testing.

Link to post

Along with the background images and whatever went the XHTML and Handicap compatibility, apparently.

 

For example, the BREAK<br /> and LISTING <ol></ol> & <li></li> tags(and more) have returned to their archaric HTML 4.0 format. What other tags are now M.I.A.,I wonder?

 

What's next on the "Hit/Hot List"?

 

Thanks a bunch "paperless" people for causing things to go backwards and forwards at the same time!

 

I wonder how many of you use "cheater programs" such as Frontpage and the like to create your cache pages. Ever tried it the "Old Fashion" way, raw coding?

 

/\/**\/\

Link to post
I wonder how many of you use "cheater programs" such as Frontpage and the like to create your cache pages. Ever tried it the "Old Fashion" way,  raw coding?

That's the only way I ever do it. I am a firm believer in using as generic HTML as is possible.

 

Heck, even my online puzzles are done without any DHTML, javascript, or anything.

 

I am surprised that Handicaching would require XHTML; many accessibility tools for handicapped people don't play well with it. If I were doing it, I would stick with generic HTML as much as possible, to make the site accessible for visually- and auditorially-impaired cachers.

Link to post
That has to be something recent.  I think I would have noticed such a glaring HTML error before.  I went and looked at a random cache page and saw the same thing.  It must be a page generation error.

 

--Marky

You're right. I'm not sure when that happened. I'll look into it. Thanks for pointing it out.

I fixed the naughty form tag.

Link to post
I wonder how many of you use "cheater programs" such as Frontpage and the like to create your cache pages. Ever tried it the "Old Fashion" way,  raw coding?

That's the only way I ever do it. I am a firm believer in using as generic HTML as is possible.

 

Heck, even my online puzzles are done without any DHTML, javascript, or anything.

 

I am surprised that Handicaching would require XHTML; many accessibility tools for handicapped people don't play well with it. If I were doing it, I would stick with generic HTML as much as possible, to make the site accessible for visually- and auditorially-impaired cachers.

There are HTML tools other than vi ?

 

Jan :rolleyes:

Link to post
Thanks a bunch "paperless" people for causing things to go backwards and forwards at the same time!

I fail to see how you can blame the "paperless" cachers for gc.com deciding to implement a tool that will clean up bad html. Malformed html, when inserted into what is other wise a very stable page, can create a very unstable page for browsers... regardless if it is for paperless chaching or just everyday website viewing. I welcome the TIDY approach. Good work. Working out the issue with XHTML... well that'd be good too, just to keep up with things.

Link to post

Having just converted http://www.GPSBabel.org from horrible table abuse and HTML4 to CSS & XHTML, I have to say that I like it better, but you'll probably get some whining from some subset of the users. I find it more symmetric (you opened it, you close it) and the programmer in me likes that it's more militant and _encourages_ rejection of malformed markup instead of making it the receiving programmer's program to deduce intent. It doesn't lend itself as readily to "street slang" markup and there's where I expect grumbling. (Well, that crowed and that guy with the rotary fone that's still using Internet Explorer 2...)

 

One of the black eyes you've taken in the process here (Sorry :-) is that you've never specificied *which* HTML/XHTML strain is suggested. So no matter which direction you turn this dial, some people will be unhappy.

 

However, the big #1 of XHTML for your needs is that it plays nicely with XML. It's currently totally impractical to take a pocket query, feed it through XSLT, and expect to do anything reasonable with the output because the XML parser has no insight into the tags like Groundspeak:long_description that allow html="True".

 

Remember the recent discussion on the GPX development list? That wasn't actually about pocket queries per se, but it was certainly inspired by problems I'd had to solve with them. It would certainly make tools to work with this data more practical.

 

If you're imagining a world with more tightly integrated cache page and pocket queries (i.e. cache_details.asp is "merely" some XSLT voodoo to mark up the GPX for that record) or that makes more extensive use of pocket-query-like substances, I suspect the move to XHTML would be worth the pain.

 

But now that you have the infrastructure in place, folks can write they want and tidy will "fix" it for them, so it really shouldn't be that painful anyway. For example, if I build on the examples above and write

$ echo "blah <ol><li>blah<br></ol>" | tidy -asxhtml

the pertinent part comes out:

blah
<ol>
<li>blah<br /></li>
</ol>

 

It knew the rules about the self-closing br tag and adding the closing list item. So the author really didn't have to know that. So I don't really see any learning curve here.

 

Since I believe it's better to pull off one band-aid than putting it back on and ripping it off again (hey, eventually the screaming stops) I'd say since you're just now really drawing a formal line in the sand, I'd make it XHTML.

 

And I'd hope to never see anything that's different between XHTML 1.0 Transitional and XHTML 1.0 Strict on a cache page anyway.

Link to post
I wonder how many of you use "cheater programs" such as Frontpage and the like to create your cache pages. Ever tried it the "Old Fashion" way, raw coding?

 

/\/**\/\

I will start by saying I don't know much about html or any of the others being talked about here. But this doesn't make me an idiot (lots of other things do but this isn't one of them). I have no clue if the code on my page is considered the old fashioned or not since I had someone help me do it. When this hobby requires me to have a degree in computer programming it will be the end of my days here and I would hate for that to happen. For you to basically make a blanket statement about using cheater programs and infer that we are beneath you due to not having the same training or knowledge is really uncalled for and pathetic. I don't know a thing about raw coding and honestly don't have the time or desire to learn it. If someone can use a program to make a page simple and enjoyable, thats all I care about. Do you honestly think that most of the people geocaching today know anything about raw coding, or really even care about it? How about trying to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Maybe that would make people want to learn about coding pages properly and that would be an opportunity for you to teach them if you wanted. You words now don't make me feel you are very approachable to learn from so I would continue to use a cheater program or a friend.

Link to post
I will start by saying I don't know much about html or any of the others being talked about here. But this doesn't make me an idiot (lots of other things do but this isn't one of them). I have no clue if the code on my page is considered the old fashioned or not since I had someone help me do it. When this hobby requires me to have a degree in computer programming it will be the end of my days here and I would hate for that to happen. For you to basically make a blanket statement about using cheater programs and infer that we are beneath you due to not having the same training or knowledge is really uncalled for and pathetic. I don't know a thing about raw coding and honestly don't have the time or desire to learn it. If someone can use a program to make a page simple and enjoyable, thats all I care about. Do you honestly think that most of the people geocaching today know anything about raw coding, or really even care about it? How about trying to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Maybe that would make people want to learn about coding pages properly and that would be an opportunity for you to teach them if you wanted. You words now don't make me feel you are very approachable to learn from so I would continue to use a cheater program or a friend.

Nobody said you HAVE to use HTML in your page at all. You can put together a perfectly fine page complete with all the info without a speck of HTML. That would be why there is the check box informing the "system" that you are using HTML... and that check box is off by default. However, if you intend to use HMTL, is it too much for the system to ask that you do it properly? It is widely viewed by HTML coders that applications such as Frontpage produce sub-standard markup. The fact that one uses such a program does not made them an idiot... but they should be prepared to deal with the outcome of useing any sub-standard markup that it produces. The biggest problem is this statement, "I ... don't have the time or desire to learn it."

Link to post

Sorry about that. That statement isn't quite the way I intended. I always try to learn what I am doing. Until a moment ago I didn't know there was such a thing as sub-standard html. I thought html was html. I clearly can't tell you what is good and what is bad though. Instead of telling us how bad we are for using the sub-standard markups, how about pointing us in the right direction for something thats easy to use and widely accepted for being an above standard markup. I would like to create better pages as I am sure most cachers would. I feel some go completely overboard though. A little color and jazz is nice. So where am I to start, I mean after removing Frontpage from my hard drive... :wacko:

Link to post
I will start by saying I don't know much about html or any of the others being talked about here. But this doesn't make me an idiot (lots of other things do but this isn't one of them). I have no clue if the code on my page is considered the old fashioned or not since I had someone help me do it. When this hobby requires me to have a degree in computer programming it will be the end of my days here and I would hate for that to happen. For you to basically make a blanket statement about using cheater programs and infer that we are beneath you due to not having the same training or knowledge is really uncalled for and pathetic. I don't know a thing about raw coding and honestly don't have the time or desire to learn it. If someone can use a program to make a page simple and enjoyable, thats all I care about. Do you honestly think that most of the people geocaching today know anything about raw coding, or really even care about it? How about trying to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Maybe that would make people want to learn about coding pages properly and that would be an opportunity for you to teach them if you wanted. You words now don't make me feel you are very approachable to learn from so I would continue to use a cheater program or a friend.

Nobody said you HAVE to use HTML in your page at all. You can put together a perfectly fine page complete with all the info without a speck of HTML. That would be why there is the check box informing the "system" that you are using HTML... and that check box is off by default. However, if you intend to use HMTL, is it too much for the system to ask that you do it properly? It is widely viewed by HTML coders that applications such as Frontpage produce sub-standard markup. The fact that one uses such a program does not made them an idiot... but they should be prepared to deal with the outcome of useing any sub-standard markup that it produces. The biggest problem is this statement, "I ... don't have the time or desire to learn it."

HTML is easy to comprehend. Really! If I can figure out its rudiments, anyone can. :wacko:

 

If someone uses a program such as FrontPage, they should probably know at least enough about HTML to be able to correct the extraneous carp it puts in that is unnecessary, and potentially browser-crashing.

 

I use the Opera browser which is wonderful, however it is less tolerant of very poorly-coded pages. Anything that makes people more aware of W3C standards and proper HTML is good.

Link to post
Along with the background images and whatever went the XHTML and Handicap compatibility, apparently.

 

For example, the BREAK<br /> and LISTING <ol></ol> & <li></li> tags(and more) have returned to their archaric HTML 4.0 format. What other tags are now M.I.A.,I wonder?

 

After you get done ranting, could you maybe make a crib sheet for me??? (seriously, what things won't work anymore, and whats the 'new' way to do it?)

Link to post
Along with the background images and whatever went the XHTML and Handicap compatibility, apparently.

 

For example, the BREAK<br /> and LISTING <ol></ol> & <li></li> tags(and more) have returned to their archaric HTML 4.0 format. What other tags are now M.I.A.,I wonder?

 

After you get done ranting, could you maybe make a crib sheet for me??? (seriously, what things won't work anymore, and whats the 'new' way to do it?)

:wacko:

Link to post
I wonder how many of you use "cheater programs" such as Frontpage and the like to create your cache pages. Ever tried it the "Old Fashion" way,  raw coding?

 

/\/**\/\

I will start by saying I don't know much ...

Oh my ... now the blind start discussing the real colors of a rainbow ...

 

:wacko:

Link to post
Sorry about that. That statement isn't quite the way I intended. I always try to learn what I am doing. Until a moment ago I didn't know there was such a thing as sub-standard html.

hehe ...

 

HTML is a sub standard (of SGML) by definition. A lot of people forget that, and users of Frontpage don't have much to forget to begin with, but that's another story.

 

Don't blame yourself. The dilemma started when some "sub-quality" programmers tried to do the best possible displaying borked and inconsistent HTML content. Instead of simply thowing up an error, these smartasses implemented hillarious workarounds for somebody elses syntax errors. Guess what, people who used try and error with their browsers to teach themself HTML believed that this is how it is supposed to be ... and wrote books about it. Now a gazillion of nu-B's learned from those (crappy) books. And the browser developers haven't learned a bit since.

 

Darn, eh?

 

Jan

Link to post
And the browser developers haven't learned a bit since.

Huh. I thought that browsers were designed to be forgiving so people didn't have to earn a Masters degree in HTML before building a page for their family and kids. This "sub-quality" programmer comment is pretty silly, IMO. Not everyone has to code low level programming languages and appreciate designing a web page. But that is just my opinion.

Link to post
I've some cache-pages where i use some background sound.

Background sound is proprietary, and not HTML standard. Besides that, background sound is annoying when viewing a webpage. If I want sound while surfing, I play a CD or mp3 file. Thank you, Jeremy!

Link to post

Is the discussion boiling down to whether or not some folks like background music or not, or people submitting cache pages with errored code?

 

Every language I have ever programmed in, I have always used the equivilant of Notepad. Just a simple text editor, thank you. Yes, I make mistakes. I was taught that if control of a program was ever turned over to code that you wrote, do your thing, but unless you are changing a GLOBAL variable, be sure you return control with everything as it was when you received it. I try to debug as much as I can on my own, but there still may be a few errors now and then. For HTML, I tend to rely on Netscape to keep me humble. Usually, if I can get a page to render correctly in Netscape, I think I'm doing pretty well.

 

Music aside, my biggest problem with HTML Tidy is that it FORCES me to close font tags, center tags and the like, just to start a new paragraph of formatted text. If I want to use a black background with yellow text, I "usta-could" just set that up ONE TIME with ONE font tag, and LEAVE IT ALONE until *I* decided that *I* want to change to something else. Now, HTML Tidy gets to make more decisions than I do, and if I do NOT want to close the font tags from one paragraph to the next, it is done for me, without my consent. I am FORCED to reset the text color again, at the beginning of EVERY paragraph! This does NOT seem like "progress" to me. HTML Tidy also seems to enjoy dictating the whereabouts of closing the CENTER tags as well. It had my cache page so messed up by closing centering that I was not yet ready to close, and at one point, even MOVED an entire block of my code to another part of the cache page! Sorry, I hate it.

 

As far as music on a background page, I like it, but like anything else, it can be over-done. When I do use it, I make it a point to ONLY play a MIDI file ONE TIME. Too many people set it to loop forever. If you don't like it, turn your speakers down, but don't force everyone else to do without it just because YOU don't like it.

 

How many of you have run across far too many "caches" that amount to nothing more than a 35mm container tossed at the base of a roadsign? Lame, but to the power cachers, hey, it's a number. I enjoy geocaching because of the caches that take me to places I would have never known about, those that show me views that are beautiful, or take me to a place that teaches me something. (Not to mention all the GREAT PEOPLE we have met both out on the trails and at caching events.) But let's face it, not every cache can be "fantastic." I usually try to put out one really "GOOD" cache, and throw in a few lesser, "filler" caches to make the trip worth more than just one find. Those little "filler" caches that are a little "ho-hum" are the ones I like to jazz up the cache page a little. (If you cant dazzle 'em with brilliance, ...you know the rest...) I like to see a good looking cache page, and it is always interesting to see something new and wonder, "How'd he do THAT!?"

 

I feel like the handcuffs have been shackled around what we are now permitted (prohibited from doing) to do, and I see this as a giant step BACKWARDS. I now have to worry more about keeping HTML Tidy happy, than trying to do something a little creative on the cache page. I do not like any program telling me how I have to write code, or, worse yet, taking the liberty of actually RE-ARRANGING my code and changing my entire layout. Sorry, I think it should be called "Tidy-Bowl," and flushed.

 

Atrus (Jim)

Link to post
And the browser developers haven't learned a bit since.

Huh. I thought that browsers were designed to be forgiving so people didn't have to earn a Masters degree in HTML before building a page for their family and kids. This "sub-quality" programmer comment is pretty silly, IMO. Not everyone has to code low level programming languages and appreciate designing a web page. But that is just my opinion.

Not designed. There is an HTML standard, so there is little room for design here. The browser design cannot change the semantic of the markup language.

 

The desired goal (making it easy) wasn't achieved anyway. Since every browser forgives something else, it has become rather hard to design web pages that display at least similar on all browsers and platforms. Everyone who actually has a Masters degree in CS can tell you that this is the very result of this "forgiveness". However unpopular strictness is, it has its value.

 

Jan

Link to post
Music aside, my biggest problem with HTML Tidy is that it FORCES me to close font tags, center tags and the like, just to start a new paragraph of formatted text.  If I want to use a black background with yellow text, I "usta-could" just set that up ONE TIME with ONE font tag, and LEAVE IT ALONE until *I* decided that *I* want to change to something else.

You probably want to remove the FONT and similar tags altogether and rather use cascading style sheets. Especially FONT is one of the worst tag examples. It uses the platform specific font name instead of an abstraction. What do you think how "Arial" is displayed on non-Windows systems?

 

Jan

Link to post
Ever heard of KISS?

 

Keep it simple, stupid!

Ever heard of a picture say more than 1000 words?

 

However my caches are everything else then "simple" so is the cache-description:

 

Before html-Tidy it was quite ok and now this description shows what is left possibilities to create a description.

Seems to me all you really dislike is that you lost the liberty to change almost the entire page style and are now limited to work inside your cache description. I actually like the second page more than the first.

 

And yes, I heard that 1000 word picture saying quite a few times. The problem is, what do you do with 1000 pictures? Maybe you want to try a number?

 

Jan

Link to post
Ever heard of KISS?

 

Keep it simple, stupid!

Ever heard of a picture say more than 1000 words?

 

However my caches are everything else then "simple" so is the cache-description:

 

Before html-Tidy it was quite ok and now this description shows what is left possibilities to create a description.

Seems to me all you really dislike is that you lost the liberty to change almost the entire page style and are now limited to work inside your cache description. I actually like the second page more than the first.

I, too, thought the second one was better. I had looked at those pages the other day and actually thought the Struppi one was the broken one. But I'm not aware of the author's intent with such a layout... nor do I speak German. To each his own.

Link to post
I, too, thought the second one was better.  I had looked at those pages the other day and actually thought the Struppi one was the broken one.  But I'm not aware of the author's intent with such a layout... nor do I speak German.  To each his own.

It's a night time cache, so the intention seems to be "dark".

 

Tim & Struppi is an originally French cartoon series (Les aventures de Tintin) from the 60's, IIRC. They have been pretty popular in Germany too. Our library had them and Asterix and whatnot ... good stuff. Tim and his little dog Struppi stumble from one adventure into another and Tim usually assumes the role of some sort of detective. They are often accompanied by the constantly cussing Capt. Haddock and ... what was the professors name ... Bienlein?

 

A night time rescue search for Tim, Struppi and the others is a cool idea for a theme cache series. Two thumbs up.

 

Jan

Link to post
Ever heard of KISS?

 

Keep it simple, stupid!

Ever heard of a picture say more than 1000 words?

 

However my caches are everything else then "simple" so is the cache-description:

 

Before html-Tidy it was quite ok and now this description shows what is left possibilities to create a description.

The "before tidy" page is unreadable for at least 50% of the standard GC.com text on the page. I imagine it's pages like this one that actually gave motivation to make this change to using HTML Tidy.

 

You shouldn't be able to override the basic outer template that provides more function than style. On your "before tidy" page, I can't read half of the normal text because of dark fonts on dark background.

Link to post
Ever heard of a picture say more than 1000 words?

 

However my caches are everything else then "simple" so is the cache-description:

 

Before html-Tidy it was quite ok and now this description shows what is left possibilities to create a description.

That "before html-Tidy" is a classic example of why it's needed. Your code is bleeding into the rest of the cache page. Anything you enter should be restricted to the short and long description areas ONLY. You have NO IDEA what cache page layout changes may come in the future, and how your code may cause the pages to become unreadable. Unless you've recently become a Groundspeak employee, I don't think it's your right to turn other people's logs into orange text.

 

You haven't been doing this nearly as long as I, so you don't remember back when people were able to enter image links as cache and owner names. Looked really cool on the cache page. But, of course, when weekly notices came out, and the ability to download LOC files, it didn't work out so well.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...