MetaFilter in IE doesn't allow View Source

October 18, 2001 10:36 AM

I've noticed that MetaFilter in IE doesn't let one "View Source". Is this by design? Given the current state of search it might make sense to allow it. When researching a new link for posting, sometimes its easier just to search for the URL in the source.
posted by harrycaul to Feature Requests at 10:36 AM (16 comments total)

I can view source in IE just fine; the file is too large to open in notepad, so I have to use a different editor, but it opens.
posted by rebeccablood at 10:49 AM on October 18, 2001

i also can view source, harry. (ie5)
posted by moz at 10:52 AM on October 18, 2001

hmmm odd... I'm using IE5.5; when I go to View Source I find it grayed out. Maybe this should be filed under IE bugs...
posted by harrycaul at 10:55 AM on October 18, 2001

Try closing all IE windows and then opening it again. Sometimes, I don’t know why, IE does stupid stuff. That’s why I use Opera.
posted by gleemax at 11:12 AM on October 18, 2001

Actually, I use Opera because it rocks...I wasn’t thinking. :(
posted by gleemax at 11:13 AM on October 18, 2001

Works fine in IE 5.5 for me.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:20 AM on October 18, 2001

I noticed that on my first install of IE6, I couldn't view source on any web pages. A reinstall fixed that, though.
posted by dogmatic at 11:23 AM on October 18, 2001

Maybe somebody's been screwing with your computer, Harry...
posted by xiffix at 11:31 AM on October 18, 2001

Yes, a simple restart of IE did help. Sorry for the false alarm....
posted by harrycaul at 11:39 AM on October 18, 2001

Phew. I was really starting to worry, there...
posted by gleemax at 12:29 PM on October 18, 2001

there is a common bug in ie (especially on win2k) - view source can be disabled when your 'temporary internet files' gets full

if the problem comes back you might want to try messing with the relevant settings...
posted by sawks at 3:18 AM on October 19, 2001

I agree with gleemax. Why don't y'all use Opera. It much faster, more standard complient, far more user friendly and the folks at Opera seem to have more etics than that bunch at Microsoft. Need more reasons?
(okay, I live in Norway so I'm not completely objective)
posted by Taco at 9:12 AM on October 19, 2001

More standards compliant than what? It's no better than IE 5 on my Mac, and much uglier.
posted by rodii at 9:53 AM on October 19, 2001

As you (should?) know, rodii, Opera is still in beta on Mac. I can’t speak for it because I can’t afford a new computer much less an old Mac.

As for Taco’s comment, he’s probably talking about IE5.5-6/Win’s not-quite-perfect CSS support, among other things. It’s also worth noting that users of Win95 can’t use anything above IE5.5 (which has serious CSS shortcomings), but they can easily use Opera 5. It’s significantly faster and FAR more efficient, as well. Again, I cannot speak for the Opera beta on Mac.

From what I’ve read, Opera 5 and IE5/Mac both have top notch CSS1 support.

As for flowers, I prefer roses.
posted by gleemax at 10:07 AM on October 19, 2001

I can volunteer that, on my Linux box at home, I don't usually use Opera because it tends to be buggier and less standards-compliant than Mozilla, and because it has ads, which I find really irritating. I'll probably give it another try when the Linux version is out of beta.

It has some features that I really like, though. The support for keyboard shortcuts is better than any other browser I've used, which is especially nice in an X Windows program, where (in my experience) good keyboard support is very rare.
posted by moss at 11:24 AM on October 19, 2001

Opera also has cool mouse-shortcuts, to go back, close windows, open them, etc
posted by signal at 12:24 AM on October 22, 2001