Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncementsWhite Papers
Discussion GroupsFirst AidDatabasesJavaBeansGUIJava 3DVirtual MachineCORBASecurityToolsGeneral
Java DirectoryOpen Source ProjectsSample Book ChaptersUser GroupsWeb Resources
Related Topics
Databases.NETMore Topics ...

Java Forum / First Aid / October 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

JSP  - mozilla and firefox problem.

Thread view: 
Sean - 28 Oct 2006 09:57 GMT
Hi all,

I have made a web application with JSPs. It seems to work fine with IE.
However, with Mozilla and Firefox, it displays the HTML source
generated by JSP instead of actually showing the HTML page for that
source.

I'm stumped because I haven't found any other msgs on forums with
someone experiencing the same problem. Any help would be appreciated. I
need to fix this urgently.

Thanks

regards
Duke

P.S. It was suggested by someone on another forum that I should check
</head> tag. I have already done that and the HTML code is error free
(or so it seems).
Mishagam - 28 Oct 2006 10:06 GMT
> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> </head> tag. I have already done that and the HTML code is error free
> (or so it seems).

You should show your JSP code, especially start of it.
May be you don't show that this is text/html ???
I am working with JSP for FireFox all the time - it works OK. But my JSP
pages start like this:

<%@page contentType="text/html"%>
<%@page pageEncoding="UTF-8"%>

May be you skipped such headers?
Andrew Thompson - 28 Oct 2006 10:12 GMT
> Hi all,

I had a comprehensive response prepared, then
I noticed hiwa was helping you over on c.l.j.p.

Please refrain from multi-posting in future.

Andrew T.
Sean - 28 Oct 2006 10:15 GMT
I apologise for multi posting. This is a bit urgent since my project is
due on Monday.
> > Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Andrew T.
Andrew Thompson - 28 Oct 2006 10:57 GMT
> I apologise for multi posting.

That's OK.

Please refrain from top-posting, as well.

>...This is a bit urgent since my project is
> due on Monday.

School papers are not an 'emergency' unless
the person who is supposed to do them has
failed to use their time efficiently.

So who's fault is it that this is urgent?
Your teacher's?   Mine?  Yours.. perhaps?

Andrew T.
Seenu Subbu - 29 Oct 2006 15:42 GMT
Why waste everybody's time with empty pontification? You either
<B>help</B>, or just <B>shut the heck up</B> and refrain from
displaying arrogance, ain't it? Just an observation, and empty, you
might concur.

> > I apologise for multi posting.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Andrew T.
Lew - 29 Oct 2006 17:03 GMT
(post re-ordered to eliminate top posting)

>>> ...This is a bit urgent since my project is
>>> due on Monday.

>> School papers are not an 'emergency' unless
>> the person who is supposed to do them has
>> failed to use their time efficiently.
>>
>> So who's fault is it that this is urgent?
>> Your teacher's?   Mine?  Yours.. perhaps?

> Why waste everybody's time with empty pontification? You either
> <B>help</B>, or just <B>shut the heck up</B> and refrain from
> displaying arrogance, ain't it? Just an observation, and empty, you
> might concur.

Why waste everybody's top multi-posting, thus causing folks to answer in
multiple forums when one would have sufficed?  Why waste everybody's time
treating Usenet like one's private homework cheat instead of learning the
material the way you're supposed to?  Why waste everybody's time getting out
of school without learning the material, then getting a job where your team
has to cover for your incompetence?  Why waste everybody's time labeling
useful responses as "empty pontification" whilst displaying that very quality?
Why not *learn* from what you perceive as "arrogance" and get the points that
are made therein?  There is gold in them thar hills, for those with the
control over their egos to mine it.

- Lew
Thomas Weidenfeller - 30 Oct 2006 10:10 GMT
> Why waste everybody's time with empty pontification? You either
> <B>help</B>,

We are not a helpdesk here. Particular not for lazy students who aren't
up to the task. Oh, and by the way, why do you try HTML in text/plain
and top-post? A little bit of education in Usenet posting styles would
be well in order for you.

> or just <B>shut the heck up</B> and refrain from
> displaying arrogance, ain't it?

Ask for a refund if you think you don't get your money's worth here. Oh,
wait, how much did you pay? Zero? Well, then you should realize that no
one own you anything.

/Thomas
Signature

The comp.lang.java.gui FAQ:
http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/faqs/faqs-hierarchy/comp/comp.lang.java.gui/
ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/computer-lang/java/gui/faq

Tim B - 28 Oct 2006 22:14 GMT
> I apologise for multi posting. This is a bit urgent since my project is
> due on Monday.

Multi-posting won't get your question answered any faster. But it might
cause people to waste time answering it when it's already been answered in
another group.
adwords@pulpjava.com - 29 Oct 2006 01:46 GMT
The content type header must be wrong. That would be my first approach.

-Cameron McKenzie
Author of What is WebSphere? www.pulpjava.com

Free Java Tutorials at www.mcnz.com
Free SCJA and Java Mock Certification Exams: www.scja.com
www.cameronmckenzie.com www.technicalfacilitation.com

> > I apologise for multi posting. This is a bit urgent since my project is
> > due on Monday.
>
> Multi-posting won't get your question answered any faster. But it might
> cause people to waste time answering it when it's already been answered in
> another group.
Andrew Thompson - 29 Oct 2006 05:48 GMT
Please refrain from top-posting...

....
> > Multi-posting won't get your question answered any faster. But it might
> > cause people to waste time answering it when it's already been answered in
> > another group.

> The content type header must be wrong. That would be my first approach.

Yes. That was the first approach of the strategy that
solved the problem on a group far, far away, and long ago.

That was also a palpable demonstration of Tim B.'s warning, no?

Andrew T.
kalla.madhu@gmail.com - 30 Oct 2006 12:45 GMT
> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> </head> tag. I have already done that and the HTML code is error free
> (or so it seems).

** I hope it is usefull to you **************

see my friend i think you wrote a jsp file and trying to execute that
jsp file without deploying it if you deploy it correctly it will wrok
as you wish

Deploying means process of placing that jsp file in a place that
webserver can invoke that jsp page

**********thank you************************
Mishagam - 30 Oct 2006 13:22 GMT
>> Hi all,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> **********thank you************************

If he would not deploy JSP file, then he would get contents of this
file, not generated HTML as he wrote. It looks like the problem are
incorrect headers, so FireFox doesn't recognize page as text/html.


Free Magazines

Get these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...

Oracle MagazineNetwork ComputingComputer WorldBio-IT WorldeWeekInformation WeekInfosecurity
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.