FireFox renders html page on port 80, but lists html on port 8080.
I am working on a WiFi controlled relay that is controlled by a webserver. The server sends HTML code. Everything works in FireFox as long as the port is 80. When I change the port to 8080, FireFox lists the HTML code, but doesn't render it. Internet Explorer displays the webpage correctly for port 80 and 8080. I have the HTML 5 header as the 1st line. Placing "http://" in front of the IP doesn't help.
Chosen solution
Hi Jscher2000, Amazingly, that solved the problem!! FireFox now displays the webpage on port 9000. It still is a mystery why it always worked on port 80, but was "picky" on the other ports. The last few days were certainly frustrating at times. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help. JimK
Ler a resposta no contexto 👍 0All Replies (4)
Hi Jim44685, here is a screenshot illustrating how to view the Response Headers for a request listed in the Network Monitor panel, and the particular one that I'm interested in.
OK, here is what I got back, see pix... I've changed things back to the "original" settings. Local is 192.168.0.176:80 and remote is n8pxw.no-ip.org:9000. So you can use your browser with the Network Monitor in FireFox and view the results, if I left anything out.
Hi Jim44685, thank you for the screenshot. It's puzzling because there's no "Response Headers" section (and there's no response code at the left end of the request line) and yet there is text in your browser from the host. Firefox is just not understanding it to be HTML.
I searched for srv=net.createServer(net.TCP) and found some examples. Could you try adding a line to this section of your code:
--Buffer is sent in smaller chunks as due to limited memory ESP8266 cannot handle more than 1460 bytes of data.
client:send('HTTP/1.1 200 OK\n\n');
client:send(html_buffer);
client:send(html_buffer1);
client:close();
Hopefully that will lead Firefox to assume it is HTML.
Chosen Solution
Hi Jscher2000, Amazingly, that solved the problem!! FireFox now displays the webpage on port 9000. It still is a mystery why it always worked on port 80, but was "picky" on the other ports. The last few days were certainly frustrating at times. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help. JimK