Document title does not work on web
L.@canberra Trevor Lawrence
a picture is displayed. It works locally but not when the site is uploaded
to the web
For example in http://tandcl.homemail.com.au/index.html
<a href="javascript:newWindow('images/display/trevor.jpg','Trevor');">
<img src="images/display/trevor.jpg" alt=""
title='Click to see a larger picture'
style="float:left"
height="100" /></a>
newWindow uses window.open() to open
http://tandcl.homemail.com.au/picture.html in a new window
The call is
window.open('picture.html?picture=images/display/trevor.jpg&caption=Trevor&height=500&width=500','',',width=500,height=575,left=390,top=0')
picture.html calls a JS function getPic() using the parameters picture,
caption, height and width to write the image into an element, change the
document.title and alter the size of the element where the image is written.
Everything appears to work fine, except that the title is not displayed in
the blue bar. Instead it says
http://tandcl.homemail.com.au/?picture=images.display/trevor.jpg&caption=Trevor&height=........
etc
I added alert('document.title= ' + document.title) to the JS and for the
picture mentioned, it alerts
document.title = Trevor
So why is Trevor being passed to document.title but not displayed in the
header?
--
Trevor Lawrence
Canberra
Web Site http://trevorl.mvps.org
David Mark
> I have some JS code to alter the document title to something meaningful when
> a picture is displayed. It works locally but not when the site is uploaded
> to the web
>
> For example in http://tandcl.homemail.com.au/index.html
> <a href="javascript:newWindow('images/display/trevor.jpg','Trevor');">
Is that meant to be a joke?
> <img src="images/display/trevor.jpg" alt=""
If the image is in a link, it needs alt text to describe the
destination (or action.)
> title='Click to see a larger picture'
Clicking is not the only way to activate the link (which is where this
title should be.)
> style="float:left"
> height="100" /></a>
XHTML?
>
> newWindow uses window.open() to openhttp://tandcl.homemail.com.au/picture.htmlin a new window
> The call is
> window.open('picture.html?picture=images/display/trevor.jpg&caption=Trevor&height=500&width=500','',',width=500,height=575,left=390,top=0')
Why the & entities? Presumably this code is not in an attribute.
>
> picture.html calls a JS function getPic() using the parameters picture,
> caption, height and width to write the image into an element, change the
> document.title and alter the size of the element where the image is written.
> Everything appears to work fine, except that the title is not displayed in
> the blue bar. Instead it sayshttp://tandcl.homemail.com.au/?picture=images.display/trevor.jpg&capt...........
> etc
This reflects the fact that on the Web it is not your blue bar
(locally it is.)
>
> I added alert('document.title= ' + document.title) to the JS and for the
Use window.alert (best to get in the habit.)
> picture mentioned, it alerts
> document.title = Trevor
You did indeed set that property.
>
> So why is Trevor being passed to document.title but not displayed in the
> header?
You passed it, but the browser dropped it.
[snip]
And why would you ask this here? Are you hiding?
L.@canberra Trevor Lawrence
David,
I will try to answer the questions in-line.
I have marked your response not prefixed by ">" as Q..and my response as A.
Don't ask me why your response was not all prefixed by ">".. That is beyond
my ken.
"David Mark" <dmark....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:428218e5-6e91-47de...@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 9:40 pm, "Trevor Lawrence" <Trevor L.@Canberra> wrote:
> I have some JS code to alter the document title to something meaningful
> when
> a picture is displayed. It works locally but not when the site is uploaded
> to the web
>
> For example in http://tandcl.homemail.com.au/index.html
> <a href="javascript:newWindow('images/display/trevor.jpg','Trevor');">
Q. Is that meant to be a joke?
A. Why do you ask that ?
I appreciate humour as much as the next person (I hope) but where is the
humour in asking why something doesn't work when I expected it to ? A
serious question, for which I expected a serious answer.
> <img src="images/display/trevor.jpg" alt=""
Q. If the image is in a link, it needs alt text to describe the
destination (or action.)
> title='Click to see a larger picture'
A. Well, I do have title='Click to see a larger picture' and AFAIK, title=
always works whereas alt= only works when the image is not available
(except of course in IE where alt= works the same way as title= , which is
why I added alt= to meet the requirement that alt= should always be
present.)
Q. Clicking is not the only way to activate the link (which is where this
title should be.)
A. I don't understand. My code is
<a href="javascript:newWindow('images/display/trevor.jpg','Trevor');">
<img src="images/display/trevor.jpg" alt=""
title='Click to see a larger picture'
style="float:left"
height="100" /></a>
1. What other way is there to activate the link ?
2. The title is present in the image tag. Would it make a difference if I
were to code:
<a href="javascript:newWindow('images/display/trevor.jpg','Trevor');"
title='Click to see a larger picture' >
<img src="images/display/trevor.jpg" alt=""
style="float:left"
height="100" /></a>
?
> style="float:left"
> height="100" /></a>
Q. XHTML?
A. Well, yes. I had originally coded and tested all my pages in
http://validator.w3.org/ as valid XHTML. But since then I may have made
changes that no longer validate. Perhaps I should either revalidate or move
back to HMTL4.01. But like many things, I haven't got around to it. (Some
people have a square tuit, but I haven't got a round tuit <g>)
>
> newWindow uses window.open() to
> openhttp://tandcl.homemail.com.au/picture.htmlin a new window
> The call is
> window.open('picture.html?picture=images/display/trevor.jpg&caption=Trevor&height=500&width=500','',',width=500,height=575,left=390,top=0')
Q. Why the & entities?
A. It seemed like a good idea at the time. IIRC, & always works whereas
& sometimes doesn't. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where one works and
the other doesn't.
Q. Presumably this code is not in an attribute.
A.I tried to extract the guts of the code rather than sending the whole lot
. What more do I need to supply to answer the (implied) question: "[Is] this
code .. an attribute?" ?
>
> picture.html calls a JS function getPic() using the parameters picture,
> caption, height and width to write the image into an element, change the
> document.title and alter the size of the element where the image is
> written.
> Everything appears to work fine, except that the title is not displayed in
> the blue bar. Instead it
> sayshttp://tandcl.homemail.com.au/?picture=images.display/trevor.jpg&capt...........
> etc
Q. This reflects the fact that on the Web it is not your blue bar
(locally it is.)
A. You seem to be repeating the problem which is that "the title is not
displayed in the blue bar."
I was trying to say that I get different behaviours locally and on the web
for exactly the same code
What extra information are you trying to give me by writing "on the Web it
is not your blue bar" ?
>
> I added alert('document.title= ' + document.title) to the JS and for the
Q. Use window.alert (best to get in the habit.)
A. OK. It may be true that window.alert is correct, but if alert always
works (and it has never failed for me yet) what is the point?
Perhaps you could elucidate why window.alert is better.
Is there an alert which is not a window.alert ?
Are there cases where window.alert is necessary ?
Are there cases where window.alert and alert would do different things ?
> picture mentioned, it alerts
> document.title = Trevor
Q. You did indeed set that property.
A. Well, that is what thought also.
>
> So why is Trevor being passed to document.title but not displayed in the
> header?
Q. You passed it, but the browser dropped it.
A. Perhaps this is where an answer is needed.
Why did the browser drop it?
How can I prevent that from occurring?
Why does this occur on the web, but not locally ? (The answer is not
important, but it would add to my knowledge.)
[snip]
Q. And why would you ask this here?
A. The group scripting.jscript is relevant to JScript and since I use IE, I
guess that is the flavour of JavaScript that I am using
Q. Are you hiding?
A. From whom
David Mark
> David,
> I will try to answer the questions in-line.
>
> I have marked your response not prefixed by ">" as Q..and my response as A.
> Don't ask me why your response was not all prefixed by ">".. That is beyond
> my ken.
Beyond your what?! Sounds like you need a new interface.
>
> "David Mark" <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:428218e5-6e91-47de...@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 9:40 pm, "Trevor Lawrence" <Trevor L.@Canberra> wrote:
>
> > I have some JS code to alter the document title to something meaningful
> > when
> > a picture is displayed. It works locally but not when the site is uploaded
> > to the web
>
> > For example inhttp://tandcl.homemail.com.au/index.html
> > <a href="javascript:newWindow('images/display/trevor.jpg','Trevor');">
>
> Q. Is that meant to be a joke?
>
> A. Why do you ask that ?
>
> I appreciate humour as much as the next person (I hope) but where is the
> humour in asking why something doesn't work when I expected it to ? A
> serious question, for which I expected a serious answer.
The joke above is not a question. Don't use the javascript pseudo-
protocol. Ever.
>
> > <img src="images/display/trevor.jpg" alt=""
>
> Q. If the image is in a link, it needs alt text to describe the
> destination (or action.)
>
> > title='Click to see a larger picture'
>
> A. Well, I do have title='Click to see a larger picture' and AFAIK, title=
Q. And that has what to do with alternate text? A. Nothing.
> always works whereas alt= only works when the image is not available
Apparently you think these attributes are meant to display tooltips.
Tooltips are but a side effect (in IE) of alternate text, not the
purpose. Turn images off and see what your link looks like.
> (except of course in IE where alt= works the same way as title= , which is
Not exactly.
> why I added alt= to meet the requirement that alt= should always be
> present.)
Irrelevant.
>
> Q. Clicking is not the only way to activate the link (which is where this
> title should be.)
>
> A. I don't understand. My code is
> <a href="javascript:newWindow('images/display/trevor.jpg','Trevor');">
> <img src="images/display/trevor.jpg" alt=""
> title='Click to see a larger picture'
> style="float:left"
> height="100" /></a>
>
> 1. What other way is there to activate the link ?
The keyboard.
> 2. The title is present in the image tag. Would it make a difference if I
> were to code:
> <a href="javascript:newWindow('images/display/trevor.jpg','Trevor');"
> title='Click to see a larger picture' >
There you go, except for "Click to." The title gives more information
about the link.
> <img src="images/display/trevor.jpg" alt=""
Now you can't see the link with images off (or with a text browser,
screen reader, etc.)
> style="float:left"
> height="100" /></a>
And where is the width?
> ?
>
> > style="float:left"
> > height="100" /></a>
>
> Q. XHTML?
>
> A. Well, yes. I had originally coded and tested all my pages inhttp://validator.w3.org/as valid XHTML. But since then I may have made
> changes that no longer validate. Perhaps I should either revalidate or move
> back to HMTL4.01. But like many things, I haven't got around to it. (Some
> people have a square tuit, but I haven't got a round tuit <g>)
Using HTML on the Web is not a backward step.
>
>
>
> > newWindow uses window.open() to
> > openhttp://tandcl.homemail.com.au/picture.htmlina new window
> > The call is
> > window.open('picture.html?picture=images/display/trevor.jpg&caption=Trevor&height=500&width=500','',',width=500,height=575,left=390,top=0')
>
> Q. Why the & entities?
>
> A. It seemed like a good idea at the time. IIRC, & always works whereas
> & sometimes doesn't. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where one works and
> the other doesn't.
I already did (see next.) The code is not in an attribute, so it
makes no sense to use HTML entities.
>
> Q. Presumably this code is not in an attribute.
>
> A.I tried to extract the guts of the code rather than sending the whole lot
> . What more do I need to supply to answer the (implied) question: "[Is] this
> code .. an attribute?" ?
>
>
>
> > picture.html calls a JS function getPic() using the parameters picture,
> > caption, height and width to write the image into an element, change the
> > document.title and alter the size of the element where the image is
> > written.
> > Everything appears to work fine, except that the title is not displayed in
> > the blue bar. Instead it
> > sayshttp://tandcl.homemail.com.au/?picture=images.display/trevor.jpg&capt...........
> > etc
>
> Q. This reflects the fact that on the Web it is not your blue bar
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^
> (locally it is.)
>
> A. You seem to be repeating the problem which is that "the title is not
> displayed in the blue bar."
You need to read the "question" again.
>
> I was trying to say that I get different behaviours locally and on the web
> for exactly the same code
I know.
> What extra information are you trying to give me by writing "on the Web it
> is not your blue bar" ?
See above.
>
>
>
> > I added alert('document.title= ' + document.title) to the JS and for the
>
> Q. Use window.alert (best to get in the habit.)
>
> A. OK. It may be true that window.alert is correct, but if alert always
> works (and it has never failed for me yet) what is the point?
Your personal observations of what "always works" are just that.
>
> Perhaps you could elucidate why window.alert is better.
Because alert is a method of the window object. You are assuming that
window is the global object (not a bad assumption in a browser) and
that there is no other object on the scope chain with such a property.
> Is there an alert which is not a window.alert ?
var alert = null;
> Are there cases where window.alert is necessary ?
Yes.
> Are there cases where window.alert and alert would do different things ?
Yes. Try the above example.
>
> > picture mentioned, it alerts
> > document.title = Trevor
>
> Q. You did indeed set that property.
>
> A. Well, that is what thought also.
>
GIGO.
>
>
> > So why is Trevor being passed to document.title but not displayed in the
> > header?
>
> Q. You passed it, but the browser dropped it.
>
> A. Perhaps this is where an answer is needed.
You missed the answer. This was just summing up.
> Why did the browser drop it?
Because it is not your caption. It belongs to whomever owns the
browser. Yes, some configurations of some browsers will let you step
on it. It is an obvious security concern that has been addressed.
> How can I prevent that from occurring?
For your browser? Change your security settings.
> Why does this occur on the web, but not locally ? (The answer is not
> important, but it would add to my knowledge.)
Locally, it is *your* caption. Putting your script on the Web changes
things. The browser doesn't know you wish to trust it with your
caption unless you tell it.
>
> [snip]
>
> Q. And why would you ask this here?
>
> A. The group scripting.jscript is relevant to JScript and since I use IE, I
> guess that is the flavour of JavaScript that I am using
JScript is an ECMAScript implementation and is therefore on-topic in
comp.lang.javascript. Seeing as there are roughly 50 posts a month
here (half Spam), the odds of getting a correct answer are not very
good. And the fact that you use IE doesn't enter into it.
>
> Q. Are you hiding?
>
> A. From whom
I don't know. Seems odd to post browser scripting questions to an MS
group that has more or less become a ghost town in recent years.
[snip]
L.@canberra Trevor Lawrence
Thank you for adding extra information.
So the answer is:
"Locally, it is *your* caption. Putting your script on the Web changes
things. The browser doesn't know you wish to trust it with your
caption unless you tell it."
I am still viewing the *same* code through the *same* browser with the
*same* browser settings, so why doesn't the browser know? The only
difference is that one is remote (through the web) and one is local (from
my C: drive)
You say that "Putting your script on the Web changes things." This statement
does not state what things are changed. Is there a setting somewhere that
says "Accept these captions whether local or via the Internet", of course in
different words, but to this effect ? If so, it would again no doubt be a
local setting, which is not what I want to achieve. I want all viewers to
see the caption.
So I'll try the question again :
Can I write code so that all viewers will see the caption ?
Or does your answer "It is an obvious security concern that has been
addressed." mean that all browsers try to block such captions
BTW,
"Beyond my ken" is a English phrase in common use. My wife only reached Year
10, but has no difficulty with this phrase.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+beyond+ken
But perhaps the phrase "beyond my ken" is beyond your ken. <g>
I could make some more comments, but I think I understand the rest of your
reply.
--
Trevor Lawrence
Canberra
Web Site http://trevorl.mvps.org
"David Mark" <dmark....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d434f1c-ca7b-4013...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
David Mark
> David,
>
> So the answer is:
> "Locally, it is *your* caption. Putting your script on the Web changes
> things. The browser doesn't know you wish to trust it with your
> caption unless you tell it."
>
> I am still viewing the *same* code through the *same* browser with the
> *same* browser settings, so why doesn't the browser know? The only
> difference is that one is remote (through the web) and one is local (from
> my C: drive)
Right. How would the browser know it is *your* Website. You
complained in clj that you got no answer (more than once) when it was
just a comprehension problem all along.
>
> You say that "Putting your script on the Web changes things." This statement
> does not state what things are changed. Is there a setting somewhere that
> says "Accept these captions whether local or via the Internet", of course in
IE has security "zones", each with its own settings. I have no idea
if one of those settings allows you to override this behavior, but it
is a good bet.
> different words, but to this effect ? If so, it would again no doubt be a
> local setting, which is not what I want to achieve. I want all viewers to
> see the caption.
But you can't as they control their own windows. See how that works?
>
> So I'll try the question again :
> Can I write code so that all viewers will see the caption ?
You never asked that question. The answer should be obvious at this
point though. Hard to believe you filed a complaint over shoddy
service.
>
> Or does your answer "It is an obvious security concern that has been
> addressed." mean that all browsers try to block such captions
No, as we have seen during this odyssey, some do, some don't.
>
> BTW,
> "Beyond my ken" is a English phrase in common use. My wife only reached Year
> 10, but has no difficulty with this phrase.http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+beyond+ken
WTF does that mean? Your wife is ten?
> But perhaps the phrase "beyond my ken" is beyond your ken. <g>
I suppose that restores a bit of your ego after this fiasco.
>
> I could make some more comments, but I think I understand the rest of your
> reply.
Would seem a good point to stop. Sheesh. One for the books.
[snip]
L.@canberra Trevor Lawrence
My ego doesn't have a problem.
What is it about Year 10 that is not clear? It is the 10th year of school,
so a start at 6 + 10 = 15 years old.
I did have to rephrase the question several times to get your answer
I did not complain more than once. (Perhaps you were reading responses to
responses)
Jorge and The Natural Philosopher gave me immediate understandable answers.
Here's one for your ego.
Can you answer a question in way that is understood by the questioner?
Sometimes this does *not* mean answering the exact question, but reading
between the lines to get to what the poster's problem is
It also means not parading your own knowledge or assuming the same level of
knowledge in others
In short, it requires humility and *not* an inflated ego.
--
Trevor Lawrence
Canberra
Web Site http://trevorl.mvps.org
"David Mark" <dmark....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:339319b1-0fb2-4b06...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
David Mark
> Some comments
>
> My ego doesn't have a problem.
> What is it about Year 10 that is not clear? It is the 10th year of school,
> so a start at 6 + 10 = 15 years old.
Oh, that's clear.
> I did have to rephrase the question several times to get your answer
No, you didn't. I answered it the first time.
> I did not complain more than once. (Perhaps you were reading responses to
> responses)
I didn't say you did. I found it ironic that you "complained" in the
other group and then got the same answer over there.
> Jorge and The Natural Philosopher gave me immediate understandable answers.
Same answer I gave you, different wording. Perhaps you had to think a
bit more to understand mine. Maybe you learned something about
browsers in the process.
>
> Here's one for your ego.
> Can you answer a question in way that is understood by the questioner?
That depends on the questioner.
>
> Sometimes this does *not* mean answering the exact question, but reading
> between the lines to get to what the poster's problem is
But this was a trivial question. There's nothing between the lines
(or even any lines.) Try reading between the lines of the answer(s).
> It also means not parading your own knowledge or assuming the same level of
> knowledge in others
Parading what? IIRC, the answer was: "it isn't your blue bar." You
should be glad for the other (very basic) pointers I gave you.
> In short, it requires humility and *not* an inflated ego.
Gee, sorry you feel shorted by my answer(s), but save the righteous
indignation (you aren't entitled to anything.) And work on your
reading skills.
[snip]
L.@canberra Trevor Lawrence
On Dec 21, 11:14 pm, "Trevor Lawrence" <Trevor L.@Canberra> wrote:
> I did have to rephrase the question several times to get your answer
No, you didn't. I answered it the first time.
Your reply was
"This reflects the fact that on the Web it is not your blue bar
(locally it is.)"
How does one read this statement?
It is mine in the sense that my browser is displaying it
It is mine in the sense that I wrote code to add text into it.
Perhaps, you meant that on the Web, it is a foreign site.
You also wrote
"You passed it, but the browser dropped it."
So I have to intrepret this as something like:
"The browser has different actions for a local site and on the web and this
is (or may be) controlled by settings in the browser (IE7) panels"
That is nowhere as clear as
"I suspect this is security thing - anti phishing. With IE7 ..
I.e when using window.open and javascript to set titles, MS has decided
that they will actually show the URL and calling function as well, so
that malicious javascript can't fake a window as easily."
OK, so this doesn't mention differences between web and local settings but
the word "security" pointed me in the right direction, perhaps even because
I had read your reply mentioning "on the web" and "locally"
[snip]
> Jorge and The Natural Philosopher gave me immediate understandable
> answers.
Same answer I gave you, different wording. Perhaps you had to think a
bit more to understand mine. Maybe you learned something about
browsers in the process.
No, much clearer wording (see above).
BTW, I am aware of security settings, etc. but it just didn't occur to me
that this was one of them. This was my bad (to quote that terrible word). I
should have been thinking "outside the square" to use another terrible
phrase
The thing that I learnt was that window.open() does not behave the same way
as <a href="........"> or location.href"........"; and the window opened in
this way can have certain features blocked by security. I have checked the
behaviour of location.href and found that document.title can be written into
the blue bar. However, I was unable to resize the window, which I can when
window.open() is used.
>
> Here's one for your ego.
> Can you answer a question in way that is understood by the questioner?
That depends on the questioner.
And also on the answerer.
> Sometimes this does *not* mean answering the exact question, but reading
> between the lines to get to what the poster's problem is
But this was a trivial question. There's nothing between the lines
(or even any lines.) Try reading between the lines of the answer(s).
I did think of written "between the words" rather than "between the lines"
<g>
Well, at one stage I wrote
"So I'll try the question again :
Can I write code so that all viewers will see the caption ?"
Originally I had asked:
"So why is Trevor being passed to document.title but not displayed in the
header?"
That is, I rephrased the question from a "Why does this behaviour occur" to
"How do I alter this behaviour?"
After my rephrase you wrote "You never asked that question". This is where
reading between the lines comes into play. If someone asks why a problem
occurs (in their eyes), then they are generally not just curious but want to
know what can be done about it.
> It also means not parading your own knowledge or assuming the same level
> of
> knowledge in others
Parading what? IIRC, the answer was: "it isn't your blue bar." You
should be glad for the other (very basic) pointers I gave you.
See above, where I commented on the meaning of "it isn't your blue bar.". It
was ambiguous and was probably meant to read "it isn't your site (as it is
locally)". If it had have been unambiguous, I wouldn't have persisted
I will not pursue this thread, but I think we both have something to learn
Questioner:
1. Describe the problem as precisely as possible
2. Remember that you may need to ask "How do I do this?" and not "Why
doesn't this happen" (whatever "this" is)
3. Read the answer as carefully as possible.
4 .Remember that the replier is answering your question and may not know
what you actual concern is. (See 1. and 2.)
5. Remember that the replier is answering from his perspective, i.e. his
level of knowledge and understanding of the question (See 3. and 4.)
Replier:
1. Read the question as carefully as possible.
2. Remember that the question may not have been precisely worded.
3. Remember that the questioner may have a concern different from that
actually expressed, e.g. a "How?" and not a "Why?"
4. Try to understand what the questioner is *really* asking (See 1. 2. and
3.)
5. Remember that the questioner is querying from his perspective (i.e. his
level of knowledge and understanding)
I will if you will (That is, I'll try to stick to my Questioner "rules")
David Mark
[snip]
>
> I will if you will (That is, I'll try to stick to my Questioner "rules")
>
It's hopeless. You can't seem to quote properly. There is no way to
respond to you without reformatting everything.
Dr J R Stockton
8b86-936...@m22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 23 Dec 2008
10:50:16, David Mark <dmark....@gmail.com> posted:
>
>It's hopeless. You can't seem to quote properly. There is no way to
>respond to you without reformatting everything.
No; you have not considered the applicable conventions. This is a
Microsoft group (you can tell from its name) although distributed by the
same mechanism as the Usenet Big-8 and others. Therefore, Big-8
netiquette rules, sensible as they are, do not apply here. Local
convention here follows normal US rules - do what you like, in the
manner which Microsoft software facilitates, and be as wasteful and
annoying to others as is possible. You seem to be an American; you
should understand such things.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.