XYplorer Beta Club

I dont know why, but i'm not able to see html pages as webpages, and i use to in PREVIEW. I have IE6 install, thought it may be a problem with IE8 so i uninstalled that. But that didnt fix it, i removed my .ini file and other files in xyplorer folder to see if it would fix it, but nope, it has to be some stupid, I'm using xyplorer 9.30 and its been like it since 9.10.
What am I missing.

Mind the settings:

Yes those are ticked, always have been, i didnt make any changes to that.
As you can see by the screenshot, html is showing as though its in Raw view.
the file is a htm file, 39.htm as an example, but it does it on ALL html, htm files.
I've uninstalled completely, reinstalled, deleted the xyplorer.ini file, and redone all my settings.
Could it be a registry error somewhere ??

I forgot: you have to untick it under Text Files!

Doh!! I feel like such a fool, its working. Thank you, thank you, a thousand times thank you.
working now. You can now delete this topic now, if you like, or leave it if someone else has the same trouble.

andy2004 wrote:Doh!! I feel like such a fool, its working. Thank you, thank you, a thousand times thank you.
working now. You can now delete this topic now, if you like, or leave it if someone else has the same trouble.

Actually I begin wondering of I should exclude HTML from Text File preview right from factory defaults. I think most people would expect a browser based preview??

admin wrote:Actually I begin wondering of I should exclude HTML from Text File preview right from factory defaults. I think most people would expect a browser based preview??

Most probably so...if they want a text style, then they'd just use Raw View, right?

j_c_hallgren wrote:

admin wrote:Actually I begin wondering of I should exclude HTML from Text File preview right from factory defaults. I think most people would expect a browser based preview??

Most probably so...if they want a text style, then they'd just use Raw View, right?

Absolutely. It makes no sense to duplicate the functions seeing raw text in the two available views, and being unable to see the browser view because of a fairly obscure setting.

cpusrvc wrote:

j_c_hallgren wrote:

admin wrote:Actually I begin wondering of I should exclude HTML from Text File preview right from factory defaults. I think most people would expect a browser based preview??

Most probably so...if they want a text style, then they'd just use Raw View, right?

Absolutely. It makes no sense to duplicate the functions seeing raw text in the two available views, and being unable to see the browser view because of a fairly obscure setting.

"Most people" ignore that a preview, depending on how it's implemented, can infect their PCs previewing the "wrong file". So please don't forget to leave us option to see it raw code... A fine tuning that haves high priority should be fine, allowing us to set-and-forget that *exe, *scr, *vbs, *htm(L) and anything user defined will be ALWAYS previewed as .txt and NOT sending any kind of sign to the OS that it must be executed in any way, no matter the circumstance via XYplorer.
Safety first.

SkyFrontier wrote: So please don't forget to leave us option to see it raw code... A fine tuning that haves high priority should be fine, allowing us to set-and-forget that *exe, *scr, *vbs, *htm(L) and anything user defined will be ALWAYS previewed as .txt and NOT sending any kind of sign to the OS that it must be executed in any way, no matter the circumstance via XYplorer.

I don't think this proposed change will have any effect on the ability to see raw code...it would just make it easier for new users to see it as web page when using Preview tab without making any changes, which is expected, I believe, vs a text view.

Hallgren:

I don't think this proposed change will have any effect on the ability to see raw code...it would just make it easier for new users to see it as web page when using Preview tab without making any changes, which is expected, I believe, vs a text view.

The ease of the process is the thing that scares me, Hallgren. Ideally they could be asked and notified on the risks involved in leaving a "live preview" ON by default at setup/first run (I'm not aware of any other file manager doing such care about their users - good publicity!), then... suffer the probable consequences. Or not. At least XY wouldn't be blamed for anything, in the event of a disaster. User choice.

SkyFrontier wrote:The ease of the process is the thing that scares me, Hallgren. Ideally they could be asked and notified on the risks involved in leaving a "live preview" ON by default at setup/first run (I'm not aware of any other file manager doing such care about their users - good publicity!), then... suffer the probable consequences. Or not. At least XY wouldn't be blamed for anything, in the event of a disaster. User choice.

I totally disagree here! That would be like asking on fisrt time in using FireFox or Chrome or other browser: Do you want to see web pages as raw text or as a true web page?
Which would be silly...

I can't think of any new user NOT wanting/expecting to see HTML files via preview as web pages even when using a file manager...other FM's I've used do it this way so why should XY differ here?

Hallgren:

I totally disagree here! (...)

You have an idea on what you will enter when web browsing, Hallgren.
But when retrieving backups usually saved with generic names (IF SO!!!), or dealing with someone else's test codes and such ADVENTUROUS file managing tasks, you can't predict precisely what's coming on...
Besides, there's the generic *alert mode* I proposed (pre-processing a list containing potentially dangerous code). It's not that hard to guess the disaster of previewing such thing and infecting the system. I respectfully stand on my ground.

On the other hand, why the hell a FILE MANAGER should behave like a web browser?

EDIT: I mean: USER OPTION! But defaults to USER PROTECTION instead of USER EXPOSITION! Then experienced users can choose FM's behavior... inexperienced users will search and get what they want KNOWING about the involved risks... and everybody's happy after all!

SkyFrontier wrote:On the other hand, why the hell a FILE MANAGER should behave like a web browser?

Maybe because in this case, that's what a user is normally asking it to do?

And is also what is advertised as it doing...being able to preview various file types...to me, no difference between this and a JPG...ok, so XY uses the external IE engine to do it but that's fully disclosed so new users shouldn't be surprised at all.