Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

HTML Tidy website does not render propertly when using HTTPS #867

ericpruitt opened this issue Feb 22, 2020 · 5 comments

HTML Tidy website does not render propertly when using HTTPS #867

ericpruitt opened this issue Feb 22, 2020 · 5 comments


Copy link

The HTTPS version of the HTML Tidy website fails to render for me on Firefox and Chromium:

$ firefox-esr --version
Mozilla Firefox 68.5.0esr
$ chromium --version
Chromium 79.0.3945.130 built on Debian 10.2, running on Debian 10.3


Google, at least in my results, links to the HTTPS version of the site by default, so the broken site may be receiving a fair amount of traffic from.

Copy link

ler762 commented Feb 22, 2020 via email

Copy link

@ericpruitt, @ler762, sorry for the long delay...

I just tested both the http:// and https:// for, in Windows 10, using Chrome, and MS Edge, and in linux using Firefox, and while I do see some minor rendering difference between browser, ALL seemed to, in general, correctly render the site...

The main difference being the rendering of the centered circled images on the separator lines - Chrome and Edge have no image, just a sort of grayed circle, while Firefox shows a Heart, Book, Building, etc... but no real difference between unsecured/http, and secured/https links...

Has this somehow been fixed? Can this issue be closed?

Copy link

Yeah, it looks like it's been fixed. I just checked again on Chromium and Firefox, and the site renders correctly on both.

Copy link

Sorry. I fixed it some time ago, and didn't close the issue. Thanks for having reported it.

Copy link

@ericpruitt thanks for re-testing and closing this issue...

@balthisar thanks for fixing the https default, back in June, 2020...

There remains a few minor issues with the

  1. In some browsers, in some OSes, the centered circles, on the dividing line, fails to show an image!
  2. The reported security issues reported by Github..., and on others...
  3. I can no longer do jekyll build, on a local updated clone of the site...

The first, 1., is hard to exactly pin down, like if fails in Chrome in one windows 10 machine, but works ok in another windows 10 machine, with the same verion of chrome! BAH!!

In my Ubuntu linux, it can fail on a local load of $ firefox index.html to review the site...

I will try to insert an image here, but if note there is copy at

But as stated, it is quite a minor browser rendering problem, so no biggie ;=))

The second, 2., seems to occur now and then, on the, and several other of our sites... and in the past you have done multiple commits for this...

Can you again do your magic... or explain to me how to effect this... Or perhaps DISABLE the dependabot checking even...

But it is just an annoying nag, so I suppose can mostly be ignored...

On the third, 3., it has been many years since I tried a local site build, back in 2015 in fact, and I guess my Ubuntu 18.04.5 LTS may need some gem/ruby/jekyll updates, or something...

There are 2 jekyll scripts in my system -

  • /usr/local/bin/jekyll
  • /usr/bin/jekyll

Since my $PATH includes the first, before the second, it reports - /usr/bin/env: 'ruby1.9.1': No such file or directory, since it starts with #!/usr/bin/env ruby1.9.1...

I tried several apt installs, like jekyll, ruby, gem, ... etc to see if that fixes the prob., but still NO GO!!!

And running $ /usr/bin/jekyll build throws out many errors lines, which end with (Bundler::GemNotFound) ???

It is not important that I be able to update the repo, and review the build locally... but it is nice to have, before you push a change...

Any assistance on getting this to build would be appreciated... thanks...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet

No branches or pull requests

4 participants