The Good Life... a weblog about life, technology, and the Opera web browser

A while back, I received the following e-mail from a colleague:

This is an intervention.

The <q> element should only be used for quotations. To ensure correct usage of the <q> element, always use the "cite" attribute when using a <q> element (or a <blockquote> element). If there is no "cite" attribute that makes sense, then <q> is the wrong element.

I think we need to have more interventions like that on the Web. If you look a page's source and wince at the <table> elements used for layout or the gratuitous use of <div> elements, send the author an e-mail. Don't just squirm, do something about it. And certainly, certainly write good code yourself.

Disclaimer: I don't admit to writing 100% semantic code, but I know I've improved over the years, certainly due to hints from friends and colleagues. I also know that my current site isn't very semantic and I hope to fix that at some undisclosed point in the future when I move away from a canned theme.

PS: Naturally, I put the above quotation in a <blockquote> element. I can't cite the source, since it's from a private e-mail. Is that so wrong?

This morning, I set out to file a bug report with Microsoft. All I wanted was a simple form on a web page to file a bug report for Outlook and Outlook Express*. I did a Google search for "microsoft bug". One of the top results is http://msdn.microsoft.com/bugs/default.asp, which has a nice big "Report a bug" link. That looked promising. I followed it and created the required Passport account. After signing in, I got a page allowing me to report bugs, but only for Microsoft's development programs (Visual Studio, Visual C++, etc.). Denied.

So, I Google'd for "microsoft bug report" and found a blog post titled "Mission: Impossible. Submitting a Bug Report to Microsoft". Fantastic. This morning, I'm Tom Cruise. I'm going to file a bug report.

Next, I searched around the Microsoft web site. Starting at http://support.microsoft.com/, I went to the Outlook 2003 Solution Center. Nothing. So, I went back and followed the link to Microsoft Support Services. Then, Personal Support. Finally, I got to the Outlook 2003 help and support site, only to find nothing about filing bugs, only information about contacting a support professional for 35USD. No, thanks. Then, I searched the Microsoft Knowledge Base. Nothing.

Back to Google. One of the other results for "microsoft bug report" is Bug Reporting Information And Links. The page was on members.tripod.com, but I figured I'd try it anyway. I followed a link there to "Visit the Microsoft Bug Reporting Webpage", which took me to http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/. Finally, a Microsoft page that talked about reporting bugs! I followed the link to the bug report page and got... a phone number.

Fine, if that's what it's going to take to file a bug report, I'll give them a call. So, I called 1-800-MICROSOFT. And that's where the problems started. The menu didn't have any option to file bug reports. The closest thing was technical support, so I went with that option. I eventually got a human who didn't understand that I didn't want support, I just wanted to file a bug report. He took down a lot of personal information, including a Windows XP product ID. I don't actually use Windows XP at the moment, so I had to borrow the product ID from another computer in the house. Then, he told me that I'd need to talk to someone in customer support. After explaining to him again that I just wanted to file a bug report, he said I'd have to get talk to customer support to file a bug report even if I didn't need support. And it'd cost 35USD. If they agreed that I'd found a bug, they'd refund my money.

By this time, I was already on the phone and it looked like I had no other option, so I said OK, I'll pay the money. He took my credit card information and transferred me to customer support. I explained the issue to someone in customer support and he said I should talk to someone in Outlook support. Fine. The guy in Outlook support started by asking for my Outlook product ID. Luckily, the Windows XP system I borrowed before also has Microsoft Office, so I borrowed the product ID from there. Apparently, you're entitled to two free support calls if you have a retail version of Microsoft Outlook. Unfortunately, we have an OEM version, so he told me again that I'd be charged 35USD and that I should talk to an Outlook technician. Optionally, I could send the bug report by snailmail**, but I opted to talk to the Outlook technician. So, he transferred me to the Outlook technician.

I described the problem to Kim (she was the first person that had a name I could pronounce), the Outlook technician. "Let me see how I can solve this for you," she responded.

"You can't solve this. I just want to file a bug report," I said.

"Ohh! OK, I'll file a bug for you."

"Is there any way I can track the bug?" I asked.

"Well, no, but I can have someone e-mail or call you later today."

"That would be great."

She took down a description of the problem, then we said our goodbyes. Fifty minutes, 35USD, and four humans later, I'd filed my first bug report with Microsoft. I don't think I'll be doing that again. Since I started this process, I've received six e-mails from Microsoft: one describing my new Passport account, one asking me to activate my Passport account, two receipts for 35USD (I hope that doesn't mean I paid twice), and two form mails from Kim, one saying she was taking charge of my case and one saying my case had been resolved by filing a bug report. I hope that means I get my money back.

* Curious what the bug was all about? Outlook and Outlook Express don't support RFC 2231, which describes how to send file attachments with international or long names via e-mail. If you send such a file attachment from a program supporting RFC 2231, such as Opera, Thunderbird, Kmail, or several other clients, the attachment name comes out as "ATT#####.dat", where "#####" is some random number.

I don't actually expect to see this bug fixed in any of the Microsoft's current products, but if they could at least read the filenames correctly in Windows Mail (which replaces Outlook Express in Windows Vista), that'd be a step in the right direction. Several other clients, such as The Bat! and many web mail systems (including Gmail) also don't support RFC 2231, so I'll be filing some more bug reports. Hopefully they won't be such a hassle.

** To send bug reports to Microsoft via snailmail, send a letter describing the problem to:

Product Name Development Group
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, Washington 98052

where "Product name" is replaced by the name of the product you want to report a bug about. In this case, I would have used "Outlook".

Update (2006-03-22 9:51pm): A lot of people are giving me flack for calling this problem a bug and not a feature request. First, you probably only say that because I provided the solution. If I had just said that Outlook isn't displaying file attachment names with international characters correctly when sent from certain MUAs, you wouldn't be so quick to judge. And that's what the end-user sees. Software developers need to keep the user's perspective in mind when deciding if something is a bug report or a feature request. That's why I called it a bug.

I also could have said that Outlook is violating RFC 2045 - 2049 since those RFCs forbid the use of the =?charset?Q/B?text?= syntax in filenames, which is what Outlook sends and receives. RFC 2231 is the only way to encode such characters in MIME headers. Is it still a feature request? I say no.

And all that is beside the point. The point here is that I couldn't find a way to just file a bug report with Microsoft. I could have described another issue, but it would still have been just as hard to file a bug.

Before I moved to Norway, I owned a Ford Taurus (affectionately named Blue Belle). When I first got the car, I kept locking myself out. I solved this for my previous car (not so affectionately called The One-Eyed Brown Beast) by keeping a spare set of keys in my wallet. For whatever reason, I didn't do the same with my Taurus.

After locking myself out for about the fifth time, I decided to get the one of those magnetic key boxes for my Taurus. If you're not familiar with them, they're small metal boxes with magnets on the bottom. You stick your keys in there, then attach them to something metallic under your car. The idea is that you have a spare key easily accessible, but somewhere most people won't look.

I went over to my friend Jeremy's place for help, so we could try to figure out the best place to install it. We got underneath the car and started looking around. "Where do you think we should put it?" I asked.

"Next to this one?" he asked. Yep, that's right. There was already a set of keys in a magnetic box under the rear of the car. All those times I was locked out, the keys were right there. Oh well.

Smile, Opera passes the Acid2 test! The above screenshot is from build 8249 (compare to the reference rendering), where we fixed a problem with the stacking order of floated and inline elements. According to the Elaborate description of Stacking Contexts in the CSS2.1 spec., floated elements are supposed to be under inline elements, though Opera painted them on top. This caused two problems in rows 4 and 5: the eyes were dimmed and there was a red bar to the right of the eyes. Check this test case to see how your browser handles it.

This last change had caused some regressions in the rendering engine, but they should all be cleared up by now. Also, since Opera 9 is still under development, there's a possibility that there could be further regressions in the rendering engine that could cause a weekly build not to pass the test. We don't expect this to be the case, though.

For an overview of the fixes we've done to get Acid2 working in Opera, have a look at http://weblog.timaltman.com/category/opera/acid2/. You can also compare screenshots by visiting http://timaltman.com/acid2/. If you're using Opera, simply press Space repeatedly to view each screenshot after navigating to that directory.

Want to test Acid2 in Opera yourself? Download the latest weekly build from the Opera Desktop Team blog!

As of March 3rd, Rebekah, Sara Ellen, and I have moved back to the United States. I had originally hoped we'd stay in Norway for about four years, and possibly settle down there for good. However, Rebekah's ties to her family are much stronger than mine and being so far away just didn't work for her.

It's hard for me to write or talk about this without it seeming like I'm blaming Rebekah for our return to the US. We both enjoyed living in Oslo and think it's a great city. We're also both very appreciative of the experiences we had there. And, we're both, to a certain extent, disappointed that it didn't work out.

However, all that didn't overcome Rebekah's unhappiness at being away from her family. It wasn't just that, either. While I was out all day at work, enjoying the camaraderie of working on a great program like Opera with a great bunch of folks, Rebekah sat at home. There really aren't many opportunities in Norway for people that don't speak Norwegian.

To be fair, Rebekah didn't go out of her way to find things that might interest her. But one does wonder how much work one should have to put into finding happiness. Was it really worth all the trouble when we were like fish out of water in a foreign country?

That all aside, the good news is that the rest of our immediate family has finally gotten to meet Sara Ellen. In the first few days since our return, we've spent most of our evenings visiting with my parents and siblings, while we spent most of our days with Rebekah's family. And I have to admit, it's great being back on US soil and in a familiar place.

Further good news is that I'm going to continue working for Opera. I'll be reopening the Opera Software office in Maryland, right from my living room. The stuff I'll be doing won't change (much), so it's really a win-win situation. Now, Rebekah is close to family again and I get to keep my fabulous job. Cool.

I disabled trackbacks just now. The majority of mail I've gotten in the past week has been notification of spam trackbacks on my web site. I haven't really used them that much and I don't think it's a big loss. It's just not worth the hassle.