|
Both links work nicely, though I have no idea what mopes are. Could that have been meant to be mops?
"Some people are like Slinkies... not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs."
|
|
|
|
|
well... I also have no idea what mopes are... I'll check it and change it as fast as I can... thank you...
and returning to the main problem, I can't understand why in two computers in my enterprise I can't see the english link...
|
|
|
|
|
Solved... I have only to press Ctrl+F5 in order to reload the page, it seems that if I press only F5 the page is not trully reloaded...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, F5 only reloads the page from the local cache, and only fetches a fresh copy if the local copy has expired. Ctrl-F5 overrides that behavior and forces a fresh copy to be requested.
"Some people are like Slinkies... not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs."
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote:
Yes, F5 only reloads the page from the local cache, and only fetches a fresh copy if the local copy has expired. Ctrl-F5 overrides that behavior and forces a fresh copy to be requested.
Nice I never knew about this lil ctrl+f5 shorcut...
I'm drinking triples, seeing double and acting single
|
|
|
|
|
I have a page with a form in ASP. On the page a have a select box, when the user selects an option, the form is posted and the corresponding data is loaded into a new select box. This I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is when the user clicks on the submit button to add the data to the database. Form validation must first take place. I do not know how to go about that form validation only occurs when the user clicks the sumbit button. The form is posted in one of 2 ways, either by selecting an option in the select box, or when clicking the submit button. It might sound confusing now, but send me a mail at brcvogt@yahoo.com then I can explain more and send you my sample code. I need this to be done ASAP as it is part of my college project.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you would be better off posting your code straight up here. You're more likely to get the response you're after.
NATHAN RIDLEY
Web Application Developer
generalgherkin@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
hey guys
if i want to insert some text in a textarea object value field at the current cursor location when the user clicks a button or some other link how do i do it? i mean how do i know where the cursor is in the string?
am i dumb or is it tricky?
thnx
"there is no spoon" biz stuff about me
|
|
|
|
|
This is the way I do that sort of thing:
<code language="javascript">
function insertSomeText(str) {
document.getElementById('yourtextarea').focus();
var sel = document.selection;
if (sel!=null) {
var rng = sel.createRange();
if (rng!=null)
rng.pasteHTML(str);
}
}
</code>
NATHAN RIDLEY
Web Application Developer
generalgherkin@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
no worries
NATHAN RIDLEY
Web Application Developer
generalgherkin@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
Hi ,
I had created a toolbar and need to deploy it over the internet . I created a cab file with an ini file in it . This cab file was referenced from a html page through the OBJECT tag . The cab file was aldo digitally signed with a certificate created with the help of the tools available in .net . But when that page is referenced the installation does not take place .
Please help . Where could i have gone wrong . The OSD file everything has been written with the help of instructions from the MSDN documentation .
And how do i run a dos command from an ini file . I tried usig the run statement but it didnt work . Please tell me how to do it . If run is the command then please send the syntax for the run statement .
Srikar Y
NITK Surathkal
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
i've got a simple asp program which will execute an *.exe once the button is clicked. the exe will be executed and the user will be able to view the execution-i don't want the user to view the execution. i need to hide the window where the exe is executed but couldn't find a way to do so. below is the vbscript that executes the exe when the button is clicked.
<script language=VBScript>
sub validateForm()
test.action="process.exe"
test.submit
end sub
</script>
hope someone can help me. thx in advance.
rgds,shan
|
|
|
|
|
I have a frameset with two frames. For both frames, I set scrollbar=auto (which is by default). So when there is a lot of content, scrollbars appear, and when it fits on one page, there is no scrollbars.
However, I notice that when the scrollbars are not visible, there is still some whitespace reserved for it all the way down the right side of the screen.
I notice this because in the body of the page, I have a DIV element and I set its background color to black. And the black does not reach all the way to the right edge of the screen.
How can I eliminate the white space?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this would work for your situation, but in the body tag of the actual html file being displayed in the frame, put style="overflow:auto;"
NATHAN RIDLEY
Web Application Developer
generalgherkin@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
Which is faster? As an example, CodeProject uses tables for their forums, is that faster or would it be faster if they were based in DIVs?
Rocky Moore <><
|
|
|
|
|
I dont think that one is faster than the other in terms of rendering.
Obviously a table is more HTML code than just a DIV but provides better layout flexibility.
I personally find tables very usefull and I prefere them when it comes to layout.
In addition, the table tag is older and is supported properly by all browsers. Of course, now, the DIV is also supported but not fully and properly by older browsers.
If your web page is to be viewed by older browsers I would suggest to use tables. Otherwise, it doesnt really make a difference. At least this is what I believe...
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
People with browsers that can't handle DIVs properly don't deserve to see web pages correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
Many people believe that...
But it is the biggest mistake that you can do. even if these people are only the 5% of your target group then you allready lost some potential customers.
If you make web pages for fun, ok I agree... But I make e-commerce sites and if 1 person cant view the web site, then I have 1 less customer...
So I cannot afford not to provide a web page that is 100% compatible with all browsers.Believe it or not but there are people who do use older browsers..
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
And if your site maintenance costs are 10% higher in order to support support and additional 1% of your possible audience is the trade off worth it? Depends on your cost/revenue model of course, but you'd better think it through.
Do you support lynx as well? How about screen readers?
It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Based on log analysis of existing traffic I've decided the reduced maintenance of only supporting CSS capable browsers is worth the loosing the tiny percentage of really backwards browsers.
--
-Blake (com/bcdev/blake)
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
I have already developed a generic CMS that can detect the browser and serve the client with the correct content and layout. Therefore all I have to do now is to create different templates for every browser...
So it is worth of speding a nother 2-3 days to make 10 different templates... and gain that 1%
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
Which is exactly what I said - there's no definitive answer on this one. You have to look at your own cost/revenue model and see what makes sense. If you have content that is repetitive enough to be put into a short list of templates then making templates per target can work. Even then you have to decide though which targets you will support. Is it worth it to make templates for Lynx or Netscape 2.x? You always draw the line somewhere.
--
-Blake (com/bcdev/blake)
|
|
|
|
|
You are right...
I make sure I support IE and Netscape from version 3 and above and the opera from version 5.
Then I make sure that these browsers work on all OS. for example IE on MAC OS is different than IE on Windows.
I need, more or less 2-3 days to make templates to support these browsers.
The bottom line is that I agree with you. On the other hand, our friend said that people who use browsers that dont support DIV tags dont deserve to view the web page. I was trying to make a point that this is a wrong approach and that when you make web sites that provide income you need to think a litle bit more about it.
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
theJazzyBrain wrote:
people who use browsers that dont support DIV tags dont deserve to view the web page
lol
I was just being wilfully perverse. You both are right of course - it depends on your model.
|
|
|
|
|
theJazzyBrain wrote:
I dont think that one is faster than the other in terms of rendering.
Obviously a table is more HTML code than just a DIV but provides better layout flexibility.
Actually, there are problems with tables not to mention the hassle of using those 1x1 gifs to blank out cells. Long tables in IE render slowly unless your table contains fixed widths. I just do not know if similar problems exist if you use nested DIVS.
theJazzyBrain wrote:
I personally find tables very usefull and I prefere them when it comes to layout.
I used to in my earlier days. But after being told enough times that tables are for data not layout it finally started to soak in. DIVs can be a pain to display the same in all late model browsers since they do not seem to have the same rules applied per the CSS standard. But if you stay clear of padding and use more nested DIVs many of the problems clear up. It is nice not to have the need of the 1x1 gif anymore
My biggest headache has been Mozilla. The browser follows the standard on a couple of issues but does not display the same as Opera or IE. So I always question what the standard should be but code around the issues
Also, as we move on to XHTML, this will become even a more serious point and I figure many will start to move away from tables.
theJazzyBrain wrote:
In addition, the table tag is older and is supported properly by all browsers. Of course, now, the DIV is also supported but not fully and properly by older browsers.
That part does not matter in my work anymore. I figure if a person cannot upgrade to a useable browser, there will be more problems than just the browser. I currently code for IE 5.0 or later, Opera 7.0 or later, Netscape 7.0 or later (do not even get me going on thier old garbage) or Mozilla 1.4 or later. Anything ealier than that, people will need to upgrade.
Rocky Moore <><
|
|
|
|