To rule out all possible factors, I made up a dummy page for an index.html to upload, along the lines of <html><head><title></title></ head><body></body></html>.; the image-swap itself is your basic <img src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
All file paths are correct; all image files have been uploaded; the JavaScript itself, such as it is, is also correct.
That is to say, all very simple.
And still it doesn't work.
Now I contacted their customer/tech support, and only after three days with the third rep was it acknowledged that I had a problem which they ought to look into (at first they did the usual tech support thing and, upon seeing the keyword "JavaScript" immediately disavowed any responsibility for my situation, as if I was calling about third-party software or something like that).
After another three days of not receiving my files that they asked me to send, which I did via Yahoo!, they took a whole week to investigate the matter
This is what I was told, in relevant part:
The issue is with how the absolute and relative links are used, and our programmers have said (and tested) that if you...
1. Upload a dummy file with all the images referenced separately, i.e. in separate <img src ="..."> tags
2. Make all the links absolute before uploading
...then what you want to achieve will be successful on the live page.
Can someone parse that for me, please? I don't understand what's being asked of me, exactly.
Am I really being asked to use absolute path-names? Couldn't that prove very messy down the road should I decide to move files/pages around??
And, moreover, how am I supposed to use separate <img> tags for the two image files that are to be used for an image-swap?? How would the browser know to link the two in the manner of an image-swap if "distributed" over separate <img> tags??
And is it perhaps somehow too much for me to expect my webpages to upload "as is" -- or is it not unusual for a webhost to have particular requirements about how such things need to be?? SBI! is my first webhost so I really don't know what industry standards would be.
> To rule out all possible factors, I made up a dummy page for an > index.html to upload, along the lines of <html><head><title></title></ > head><body></body></html>.; the image-swap itself is your basic <img > src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
Doesn't onmouseover etc. have to be a script, not just the name of another image?
I've never heard of this technique before and can't find it in the HTML spec.
> All file paths are correct; all image files have been uploaded; the > JavaScript itself, such as it is, is also correct.
> That is to say, all very simple.
> And still it doesn't work.
> Now I contacted their customer/tech support, and only after three days > with the third rep was it acknowledged that I had a problem which they > ought to look into (at first they did the usual tech support thing > and, upon seeing the keyword "JavaScript" immediately disavowed any > responsibility for my situation, as if I was calling about third-party > software or something like that).
It's not like the JavaScript is running on their server, so it shouldn't make any difference to them.
> After another three days of not receiving my files that they asked me > to send, which I did via Yahoo!, they took a whole week to investigate > the matter
> This is what I was told, in relevant part:
> The issue is with how the absolute and relative links are > used, and our programmers have said (and tested) that > if you...
> 1. Upload a dummy file with all the images referenced > separately, i.e. in separate <img src ="..."> tags
> 2. Make all the links absolute before uploading
> ...then what you want to achieve will be successful on > the live page.
> Can someone parse that for me, please? I don't understand what's > being asked of me, exactly.
> Am I really being asked to use absolute path-names? Couldn't that > prove very messy down the road should I decide to move files/pages > around??
Yes. And if they're absolute, how are you supposed to know what the root is?
> And, moreover, how am I supposed to use separate <img> tags for the > two image files that are to be used for an image-swap?? How would the > browser know to link the two in the manner of an image-swap if > "distributed" over separate <img> tags??
> And is it perhaps somehow too much for me to expect my webpages to > upload "as is" -- or is it not unusual for a webhost to have > particular requirements about how such things need to be?? SBI! is my > first webhost so I really don't know what industry standards would be.
I don't think things are supposed to be this difficult.
> To rule out all possible factors, I made up a dummy page for an > index.html to upload, along the lines of <html><head><title></title></ > head><body></body></html>.; the image-swap itself is your basic <img > src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
> All file paths are correct; all image files have been uploaded; the > JavaScript itself, such as it is, is also correct.
> That is to say, all very simple.
> And still it doesn't work.
> Now I contacted their customer/tech support, and only after three days > with the third rep was it acknowledged that I had a problem which they > ought to look into (at first they did the usual tech support thing > and, upon seeing the keyword "JavaScript" immediately disavowed any > responsibility for my situation, as if I was calling about third-party > software or something like that).
> After another three days of not receiving my files that they asked me > to send, which I did via Yahoo!, they took a whole week to investigate > the matter
> This is what I was told, in relevant part:
> The issue is with how the absolute and relative links are > used, and our programmers have said (and tested) that > if you...
> 1. Upload a dummy file with all the images referenced > separately, i.e. in separate <img src ="..."> tags
> 2. Make all the links absolute before uploading
> ...then what you want to achieve will be successful on > the live page.
> Can someone parse that for me, please? I don't understand what's > being asked of me, exactly.
> Am I really being asked to use absolute path-names? Couldn't that > prove very messy down the road should I decide to move files/pages > around??
> And, moreover, how am I supposed to use separate <img> tags for the > two image files that are to be used for an image-swap?? How would the > browser know to link the two in the manner of an image-swap if > "distributed" over separate <img> tags??
> And is it perhaps somehow too much for me to expect my webpages to > upload "as is" -- or is it not unusual for a webhost to have > particular requirements about how such things need to be?? SBI! is my > first webhost so I really don't know what industry standards would be.
The onmouseover and onmouseout parameters of the tag needs to refer to a JavaScript function, or even a small JavaScript contained inside the parameter text, not a reference to an image location.
>To rule out all possible factors, I made up a dummy page for an >index.html to upload, along the lines of <html><head><title></title></ >head><body></body></html>.; the image-swap itself is your basic <img >src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
>All file paths are correct; all image files have been uploaded; the >JavaScript itself, such as it is, is also correct.
>That is to say, all very simple.
>And still it doesn't work.
>Now I contacted their customer/tech support, and only after three days >with the third rep was it acknowledged that I had a problem which they >ought to look into (at first they did the usual tech support thing >and, upon seeing the keyword "JavaScript" immediately disavowed any >responsibility for my situation, as if I was calling about third-party >software or something like that).
>After another three days of not receiving my files that they asked me >to send, which I did via Yahoo!, they took a whole week to investigate >the matter
>This is what I was told, in relevant part:
>The issue is with how the absolute and relative links are >used, and our programmers have said (and tested) that >if you...
>1. Upload a dummy file with all the images referenced >separately, i.e. in separate <img src ="..."> tags
>2. Make all the links absolute before uploading
>...then what you want to achieve will be successful on >the live page.
>Can someone parse that for me, please? I don't understand what's >being asked of me, exactly.
>Am I really being asked to use absolute path-names? Couldn't that >prove very messy down the road should I decide to move files/pages >around??
>And, moreover, how am I supposed to use separate <img> tags for the >two image files that are to be used for an image-swap?? How would the >browser know to link the two in the manner of an image-swap if >"distributed" over separate <img> tags??
>And is it perhaps somehow too much for me to expect my webpages to >upload "as is" -- or is it not unusual for a webhost to have >particular requirements about how such things need to be?? SBI! is my >first webhost so I really don't know what industry standards would be.
bleh.gif would never be parsed as a valid function. By any scripting engine.
<img src="blah.png" onMouseOver="this.src='bleh.gif';" onMouseOut="this.src='blah.png';"> will work.
Yet the support is plain clueless. Dump'em. Find yourself a real hosting service - or host it yourself, all you need is static ip from your 'net provider. Even plain XP can support up to 80 concurrent connections - enough for an amateur site. Need more? Get Linux/Apache for free, or eMule WinServer2003 - Bill Gates surely will not go broke without your license fee.
>> To rule out all possible factors, I made up a dummy page for an >> index.html to upload, along the lines of <html><head><title></title></ >> head><body></body></html>.; the image-swap itself is your basic <img >> src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
>> All file paths are correct; all image files have been uploaded; the >> JavaScript itself, such as it is, is also correct.
>> That is to say, all very simple.
>> And still it doesn't work.
>> Now I contacted their customer/tech support, and only after three days >> with the third rep was it acknowledged that I had a problem which they >> ought to look into (at first they did the usual tech support thing >> and, upon seeing the keyword "JavaScript" immediately disavowed any >> responsibility for my situation, as if I was calling about third-party >> software or something like that).
>> After another three days of not receiving my files that they asked me >> to send, which I did via Yahoo!, they took a whole week to investigate >> the matter
>> This is what I was told, in relevant part:
>> The issue is with how the absolute and relative links are >> used, and our programmers have said (and tested) that >> if you...
>> 1. Upload a dummy file with all the images referenced >> separately, i.e. in separate <img src ="..."> tags
>> 2. Make all the links absolute before uploading
>> ...then what you want to achieve will be successful on >> the live page.
>> Can someone parse that for me, please? I don't understand what's >> being asked of me, exactly.
>> Am I really being asked to use absolute path-names? Couldn't that >> prove very messy down the road should I decide to move files/pages >> around??
>> And, moreover, how am I supposed to use separate <img> tags for the >> two image files that are to be used for an image-swap?? How would the >> browser know to link the two in the manner of an image-swap if >> "distributed" over separate <img> tags??
>> And is it perhaps somehow too much for me to expect my webpages to >> upload "as is" -- or is it not unusual for a webhost to have >> particular requirements about how such things need to be?? SBI! is my >> first webhost so I really don't know what industry standards would be.
> bleh.gif would never be parsed as a valid function. By any scripting > engine.
> <img src="blah.png" onMouseOver="this.src='bleh.gif';" > onMouseOut="this.src='blah.png';"> will work.
> Yet the support is plain clueless. Dump'em. Find yourself a real > hosting service - or host it yourself, all you need is static ip from > your 'net provider. Even plain XP can support up to 80 concurrent > connections - enough for an amateur site. Need more? Get > Linux/Apache for free, or eMule WinServer2003 - Bill Gates surely will > not go broke without your license fee.
> NNN
The hosting company's job is to keep servers running, not troubleshoot our code. I would never expect a hosting company to be knowledgeable about javascript or any other language.
And hosting it yourself is the worst thing you can do. What happens if your phone line goes down? Your power goes out? Your server hangs while you are at work - or worse yet, on vacation. Additionally, it may be a violation of your ISP's TOS (and they may even have port 80 blocked for incoming requests).
Plus you wouldn't get support for your javascript.
Hosting is a commodity. But don't expect the hosting company to do what you're not paying for.
-- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstuck...@attglobal.net ==================
> To rule out all possible factors, I made up a dummy page for an > index.html to upload, along the lines of <html><head><title></title></ > head><body></body></html>.; the image-swap itself is your basic <img > src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
> All file paths are correct; all image files have been uploaded; the > JavaScript itself, such as it is, is also correct.
> That is to say, all very simple.
> And still it doesn't work.
> Now I contacted their customer/tech support, and only after three days > with the third rep was it acknowledged that I had a problem which they > ought to look into (at first they did the usual tech support thing > and, upon seeing the keyword "JavaScript" immediately disavowed any > responsibility for my situation, as if I was calling about third-party > software or something like that).
> After another three days of not receiving my files that they asked me > to send, which I did via Yahoo!, they took a whole week to investigate > the matter
> This is what I was told, in relevant part:
> The issue is with how the absolute and relative links are > used, and our programmers have said (and tested) that > if you...
> 1. Upload a dummy file with all the images referenced > separately, i.e. in separate <img src ="..."> tags
> 2. Make all the links absolute before uploading
> ...then what you want to achieve will be successful on > the live page.
> Can someone parse that for me, please? I don't understand what's > being asked of me, exactly.
> Am I really being asked to use absolute path-names? Couldn't that > prove very messy down the road should I decide to move files/pages > around??
> And, moreover, how am I supposed to use separate <img> tags for the > two image files that are to be used for an image-swap?? How would the > browser know to link the two in the manner of an image-swap if > "distributed" over separate <img> tags??
> And is it perhaps somehow too much for me to expect my webpages to > upload "as is" -- or is it not unusual for a webhost to have > particular requirements about how such things need to be?? SBI! is my > first webhost so I really don't know what industry standards would be.
It's not uncommon for a Hosting Tech Dept to walk away from a script you wrote, as it really isn't their problem - especially Javascript, which is client-side. By responding at all, they were actually going above and beyond what could reasonably be expected.
>> To rule out all possible factors, I made up a dummy page for an >> index.html to upload, along the lines of <html><head><title></title></ >> head><body></body></html>.; the image-swap itself is your basic <img >> src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
> Doesn't onmouseover etc. have to be a script, not just the name of > another image?
One could write a popup script that would scan the DOM in the domReady event, and replace the image names with real event handler closures that load the named images.
I'm doing a similar feature on a site I'm working on right now - I include a script at the top of the page, and links that include a "rel" attribute value are modified through the DOM to add an onClick event that is handled by loading the target with AJAX and displaying it in a popup div.
Since the pieces that make the page reliant on JavaScript are added by a JavaScript event handler, on browsers that don't do JavaScript by design or by user choice, the links will remain ordinary links. That makes this technique a good way to build in a graceful fallback.
Perhaps Prisoner was using a script at one time that did this kind of on the fly modification, and is now using one for which he needs to insert a more traditional function call into the event attributes.
>> Now I contacted their customer/tech support, and only after three days >> with the third rep was it acknowledged that I had a problem which they >> ought to look into (at first they did the usual tech support thing >> and, upon seeing the keyword "JavaScript" immediately disavowed any >> responsibility for my situation, as if I was calling about third-party >> software or something like that).
> It's not like the JavaScript is running on their server, so it shouldn't > make any difference to them.
This is a free hosting service, right? They could be inserting content, like banner ads or something, in return for free hosting. I can well imagine a banner ad with a mouseover script. And I can well imagine a mouseover script being packaged this way. It needs JavaScript to function anyway, so using JS to connect the event handlers is no additional burden. It's certainly valid HTML. And it's a bit less error prone; end users can use it who don't know a bit of JavaScript.
Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> writes: > The hosting company's job is to keep servers running, not troubleshoot > our code. I would never expect a hosting company to be knowledgeable > about javascript or any other language.
I couldn't agree more!
Of course, having worked the phones in a "full service" hosting provider that *did* offer that kind of support, in the full swing of the boom of the 90s, I'm kind of biased on the subject. :-)
> And hosting it yourself is the worst thing you can do. What happens > if your phone line goes down? Your power goes out? Your server hangs > while you are at work - or worse yet, on vacation.
That depends. If it's a hobby site, the answer to those questions may well be, who cares. I can fix it when I get back, the line gets fixed, or whatever. Baby pictures don't really need five nines uptime.
> Additionally, it > may be a violation of your ISP's TOS (and they may even have port 80 > blocked for incoming requests).
I'd be far more concerned with that aspect of it that the reliability.
Also, many ISPs offer web space to their customers, many of them for free.
nob...@nowhere.net wrote: > On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:54:01 -0700 (PDT), Prisoner at War wrote: <snip> ><img src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" > onMouseOut="blah.png">. <snip> > bleh.gif would never be parsed as a valid function. > By any scripting engine.
<snip>
The values of intrinsic event attributes are not parsed as functions, they are parsed as function bodies, and - bleh.gif - is a valid function body. It is a single expression statement consisting of a dot notation property accessor. Pointless, and unlikely to execute without error, but still completely valid.
