Interframe communication
Wael
Is it possible to access an array that is in another frame?
Thanks
Stevo
> Is it possible to access an array that is in another frame?
Yes it is possible.
Randy Webb
> Wael wrote:
>> Is it possible to access an array that is in another frame?
>
> Yes it is possible.
Damn, you beat me to it.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Stevo
> Stevo said the following on 11/26/2007 12:42 AM:
>> Wael wrote:
>>> Is it possible to access an array that is in another frame?
>> Yes it is possible.
> Damn, you beat me to it.
Seriously though Mr Wael, here's how you do it.
Go to google.com and type in the following (adding only the word
JavaScript to your original question):
Is it possible to access an array that is in another frame javascript
and choose from the numerous examples of how to access variables in one
frame from another.
This Google thing might turn out to be useful, is it too late to invest?
Randy Webb
> Randy Webb wrote:
>> Stevo said the following on 11/26/2007 12:42 AM:
>>> Wael wrote:
>>>> Is it possible to access an array that is in another frame?
>>> Yes it is possible.
>> Damn, you beat me to it.
>
> Seriously though Mr Wael, here's how you do it.
>
> Go to google.com and type in the following (adding only the word
> JavaScript to your original question):
Add the word "script" or "javascript" doesn't make a lot of difference
in a Google Search.
> Is it possible to access an array that is in another frame javascript
>
> and choose from the numerous examples of how to access variables in one
> frame from another.
>
> This Google thing might turn out to be useful, is it too late to invest?
If they could figure out the difference between content and source code,
and then figure out how to count there own statistics properly :)
Wael
> Stevo said the following on 11/26/2007 3:40 AM:
>
> > Randy Webb wrote:
> >> Stevo said the following on 11/26/2007 12:42 AM:
> >>> Wael wrote:
> >>>> Is it possible to access an array that is in another frame?
> >>> Yes it is possible.
> >> Damn, you beat me to it.
>
implied the "how" :)))
Randy Webb
But, but, that isn't what you asked :)
How do I communicate between frames in a browser?
Imagine that, it is a question in this groups FAQ. Number 4.8 to be
specific.
It even answers your specific question about variables in another frame.
Wael
>
> How do I communicate between frames in a browser?
>
> Imagine that, it is a question in this groups FAQ. Number 4.8 to be
> specific.
>
> It even answers your specific question about variables in another frame.
To me this is communication between two frames :) Otherwise, how would
you interpret this? May be there is a new trick to learn and i asked
it by mistake.
Anyway, here is what i've been trying to do for two days now
var reqFrame = window.top.frames(3).frameElement;
alert(reqFrame.src);
or reqFrame.src = "http://www.yahoo.com"
I haven't been able to do anything more useful with this. i can access
objects that either have no value or have values that i am not really
interested in.
I am using google groups, so i don't know how to go to FAQ 4.8
Thanks for having the potential to help ;))
Randy Webb
>> But, but, that isn't what you asked :)
>>
>> How do I communicate between frames in a browser?
>>
>> Imagine that, it is a question in this groups FAQ. Number 4.8 to be
>> specific.
>>
>> It even answers your specific question about variables in another frame.
>
> To me this is communication between two frames :)
Yes. And that is what you are wanting to do. Communicate from one frame
to another to find out what an array contains. Your original question was:
<quote>
Is it possible to access an array that is in another frame?
</quote>
> Otherwise, how would you interpret this? May be there is a new trick to
> learn and i asked it by mistake.
What you are trying to do has nothing to do with "Arrays", you are
trying to access a property of a Frame. You just aren't trying to access
the right property.
> Anyway, here is what i've been trying to do for two days now
>
> var reqFrame = window.top.frames(3).frameElement;
> alert(reqFrame.src);
> or reqFrame.src = "http://www.yahoo.com"
var reqFrame = window.top.frames['frameNAME'];
alert(reqFrame.location.href);
reqFrame.location.href = "........";
Beware, you can't read the property (any property) from another frame if
the document in that frame (or the frameset itself) isn't in the same
domain as the page you are working from.
> I haven't been able to do anything more useful with this. i can access
> objects that either have no value or have values that i am not really
> interested in.
It might work better if you gave an example of what you are trying to
do. Specific example. Then it is easier to give you an answer.
Otherwise, the only thing anybody can do is guess and hope they guessed
right. Not a good way to learn :)
> I am using google groups, so i don't know how to go to FAQ 4.8
Your honesty saves you from me calling you a doofus for not searching
for "FAQ" in Google Groups. You get kudos for honesty. There is also a
link to it in my signature (that you snipped properly).
<URL: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_8>
> Thanks for having the potential to help ;))
Take me with a sense of humor and I am a lot easier to get along with :)
Stevo
> var reqFrame = window.top.frames(3).frameElement;
frames isn't a function, so you shouldn't be trying to "call" it with
the parameter value 3. Switch out that (3) and replace it with [3] and
you'll get a bit further.
Wael
Sorry guys,
still the same problem after i changed to square brackets.
// alert(reqFrame.ownerDocument.name);
reqFrame.loadImages();
Both of these don't work. I am not sure how to access the underlying
document where "reqFrame" is. i am able to access the reqFrame.name,
but not sure how to go after. loadImages is a function in the page
where reqFrame is pointing. Of course i wouldn't load the images from
another page. i am just trying to access anything on that page. Even
with faq4.8
Randy Webb
Post a URL to a sample page that you can't get to work. That would make
it a lot simpler to tell you where you are going wrong. And in that
page, try to explain, simply, what you are trying to do.
Telling us "my code doesn't work" is tantamount to me saying "My stereo
doesn't play music, why?" without showing you the stereo or even
explaining that I unplugged the thing.
Wael
> Telling us "my code doesn't work" is tantamount to me saying "My stereo
> doesn't play music, why?" without showing you the stereo or even
> explaining that I unplugged the thing.
>
> --
> Randy
> Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
> comp.lang.javascript FAQ -http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
>
> - Show quoted text -
As you can see, the complexity of my page dictates the use of all
those frames.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sedky69/
Wael
br_frame.html
middle_right_frame.html
what i am trying to do is change an image on the middle_.. html page,
but for now i can't access anything on that page. Just the frame that
contains it.
Randy Webb
>> Telling us "my code doesn't work" is tantamount to me saying "My stereo
>> doesn't play music, why?" without showing you the stereo or even
>> explaining that I unplugged the thing.
>>
<snip>
> As you can see, the complexity of my page dictates the use of all
> those frames.
I don't agree with that assessment. You should view that page with a
browser window that is 800 pixels wide or so. It is horrendous.
<URL: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hikksnotathome/waelsedky.jpg>
Not a very pleasing look.
Make the lower right "frame" a div element with absolute positioning and
the rest of your "frames" can be made part of the page itself. One
document, no frames. It even solves your JS issue because then you have
no frames to try to communicate across.
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/sedky69/
Part of my last reply, that you snipped, included this:
<quote>
And in that page, try to explain, simply, what you are trying to do.
</quote>
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
Wael
> I don't agree with that assessment. You should view that page with a
> browser window that is 800 pixels wide or so. It is horrendous.
>
> <URL:http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hikksnotathome/waelsedky.jpg>
>
> Not a very pleasing look.
>
> Make the lower right "frame" a div element with absolute positioning and
> the rest of your "frames" can be made part of the page itself. One
> document, no frames. It even solves your JS issue because then you have
> no frames to try to communicate across.
>
> >http://www3.sympatico.ca/sedky69/
>
> Part of my last reply, that you snipped, included this:
>
> <quote>
> And in that page, try to explain, simply, what you are trying to do.
> </quote>
that's bad news. back to the drawing board. i haven't used <div>
before. i am using html because photoshop creates the file for me. i
just have to tweak it, add scripts, etc.
here is what i was originally trying to do. because of the odd
position of my buttons, i could not use an "onmouseover" event
(because how would i place the new image), so i used image maps and to
make the page look a lively a bit, i was going to have an icon
displayed in the frame that i cannot access. it didn't work.
i am relying on visuals on my page more than anything else.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> I don't agree with that assessment. You should view that page with a
>> browser window that is 800 pixels wide or so. It is horrendous.
>>
>> <URL:http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hikksnotathome/waelsedky.jpg>
>>
>> Not a very pleasing look.
>>
>> Make the lower right "frame" a div element with absolute positioning and
>> the rest of your "frames" can be made part of the page itself. One
>> document, no frames. It even solves your JS issue because then you have
>> no frames to try to communicate across.
>>
>>> http://www3.sympatico.ca/sedky69/
>> Part of my last reply, that you snipped, included this:
>>
>> <quote>
>> And in that page, try to explain, simply, what you are trying to do.
>> </quote>
>
> that's bad news. back to the drawing board. i haven't used <div>
> before. i am using html because photoshop creates the file for me. i
> just have to tweak it, add scripts, etc.
`div' *is* a proper standardized HTML element type since HTML 4.01. That
specification, which also introduced CSS support, went Recommendation on
1999-12-24, and some features of it were supported a while before that.
You must have overslept at least the last 7 years:
> here is what i was originally trying to do. because of the odd
> position of my buttons, i could not use an "onmouseover" event
> (because how would i place the new image),
You are not making sense. The event listener does not need to modify the
`img' element's position:
> so i used image maps
There is nothing wrong with that as long as you provide the `alt' attributes
for the `area' elements:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#h-13.6
> and to make the page look a lively a bit, i was going to have an icon
> displayed in the frame that i cannot access.
You don't need frames for that. Probably you don't even need client-side
scripting; :hover could suffice.
> it didn't work.
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html#ps1DontWork
> i am relying on visuals on my page more than anything else.
Which is why you should not, by using frames, make matters more complicated
and inaccessible than they need to be.
Please provide an attribution line above your quotations next time:
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
akela_p501usa
The purpose of this library is to allow IFRAME objects to be dragged
around the screen in the same way that popup windows or draggable DIV
tags are often used. Since IFRAME objects always cover form objects,
this makes an ideal solution for a simulated "popup window" on a page
with form objects.
It requires almost no code to function, making it the easiest script to
get up and running quickly!
dragiframe.js
Chace [‡] Daggers
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Randy Webb
>> I don't agree with that assessment. You should view that page with a
>> browser window that is 800 pixels wide or so. It is horrendous.
>>
>> <URL:http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hikksnotathome/waelsedky.jpg>
>>
>> Not a very pleasing look.
>>
>> Make the lower right "frame" a div element with absolute positioning and
>> the rest of your "frames" can be made part of the page itself. One
>> document, no frames. It even solves your JS issue because then you have
>> no frames to try to communicate across.
>>
>>> http://www3.sympatico.ca/sedky69/
>> Part of my last reply, that you snipped, included this:
>>
>> <quote>
>> And in that page, try to explain, simply, what you are trying to do.
>> </quote>
>
> that's bad news. back to the drawing board. i haven't used <div>
> before. i am using html because photoshop creates the file for me. i
> just have to tweak it, add scripts, etc.
The site is now gone so I am not sure what version of HTML you are
using. Putting it up with a div element would be easy, the hardest part
of it would be targeting the links to a div element. The easiest way
around that is to use an IFrame and target the IFrame.
If you aren't familiar with the DIV element, try asking in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html or alt.html about how to do what you
are trying to do without using frames. Beware that about half of them
might tell you to "RTFM" and not a lot more.
> here is what i was originally trying to do. because of the odd
> position of my buttons, i could not use an "onmouseover" event
> (because how would i place the new image), so i used image maps and to
> make the page look a lively a bit, i was going to have an icon
> displayed in the frame that i cannot access. it didn't work.
Make the entire page one page, then use an IFrame for the content, then
use CSS positioning to put it where you want it.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
<iframe style="position:absolute;left:200px;top:200px;"
src="iframeSRC.html" name="myIFrame"></iframe>
change the iframeSRC.html to your page. Then tinker around with the top
and left to get it where you want it. Then simply target="myIFrame" on
your links to open them in the IFrame.
Randy Webb
> Wael wrote:
>>> I don't agree with that assessment. You should view that page with a
>>> browser window that is 800 pixels wide or so. It is horrendous.
>>>
>>> <URL:http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hikksnotathome/waelsedky.jpg>
>>>
>>> Not a very pleasing look.
>>>
>>> Make the lower right "frame" a div element with absolute positioning and
>>> the rest of your "frames" can be made part of the page itself. One
>>> document, no frames. It even solves your JS issue because then you have
>>> no frames to try to communicate across.
>>>
>>>> http://www3.sympatico.ca/sedky69/
>>> Part of my last reply, that you snipped, included this:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> And in that page, try to explain, simply, what you are trying to do.
>>> </quote>
>> that's bad news. back to the drawing board. i haven't used <div>
>> before. i am using html because photoshop creates the file for me. i
>> just have to tweak it, add scripts, etc.
>
> `div' *is* a proper standardized HTML element type since HTML 4.01.
Who said it wasn't? The OP clearly said he hadn't used it before.
Nothing more, nothing less. Especially not that it wasn't part of HTML.
You are a work of art sometimes.
> That specification, which also introduced CSS support, went Recommendation on
> 1999-12-24, and some features of it were supported a while before that.
> You must have overslept at least the last 7 years:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
>
>> here is what i was originally trying to do. because of the odd
>> position of my buttons, i could not use an "onmouseover" event
>> (because how would i place the new image),
>
> You are not making sense. The event listener does not need to modify the
> `img' element's position:
You are amazing sometimes.
> http://PointedEars.de/hoverMe
Overbloated. Swapping images in a decent browser is trivial.
>> so i used image maps
>
> There is nothing wrong with that as long as you provide the `alt' attributes
> for the `area' elements:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#h-13.6
That's nice[1].
>> and to make the page look a lively a bit, i was going to have an icon
>> displayed in the frame that i cannot access.
>
> You don't need frames for that. Probably you don't even need client-side
> scripting; :hover could suffice.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
Yeah, we all know how well supported :hover is on images in the most
predominant browser on the web. Makes it pretty useless.
>> it didn't work.
>
> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html#ps1DontWork
<eyeroll> If you would have bothered to read the thread, you would know
what didn't work and wouldn't be posting your pedantic thoughts about it.
>> i am relying on visuals on my page more than anything else.
>
> Which is why you should not, by using frames, make matters more complicated
> and inaccessible than they need to be.
Finally, something that has any relevance at all.
> Please provide an attribution line above your quotations next time:
> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html
That's nice[1].
> PointedEars
If you are going to whine and pedant like a cry baby about attributions,
maybe you should correct your broken signature that you have been told
about many many times before.
[1] Do you need the URL or do you already know?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/30/2007 11:47 AM:
>> Wael wrote:
>>>> I don't agree with that assessment. You should view that page with a
>>>> browser window that is 800 pixels wide or so. It is horrendous.
>>>>
>>>> <URL:http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hikksnotathome/waelsedky.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> Not a very pleasing look.
>>>>
>>>> Make the lower right "frame" a div element with absolute positioning and
>>>> the rest of your "frames" can be made part of the page itself. One
>>>> document, no frames. It even solves your JS issue because then you have
>>>> no frames to try to communicate across.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www3.sympatico.ca/sedky69/
>>>> Part of my last reply, that you snipped, included this:
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> And in that page, try to explain, simply, what you are trying to do.
>>>> </quote>
>>> that's bad news. back to the drawing board. i haven't used <div>
>>> before. i am using html because photoshop creates the file for me. i
>>> just have to tweak it, add scripts, etc.
>> `div' *is* a proper standardized HTML element type since HTML 4.01.
>
> Who said it wasn't? The OP clearly said he hadn't used it before.
> Nothing more, nothing less. Especially not that it wasn't part of HTML.
I understood the OP's emphasizing that they are "using HTML because ..." in
relation to "I haven't used <div> before" as their saying that `div' was not
part of HTML.
>>> and to make the page look a lively a bit, i was going to have an icon
>>> displayed in the frame that i cannot access.
>> You don't need frames for that. Probably you don't even need client-side
>> scripting; :hover could suffice.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
>
> Yeah, we all know how well supported :hover is on images in the most
> predominant browser on the web. Makes it pretty useless.
You are missing the fact that these are graphical links.
Randy Webb
I have read that post 4 times now and honestly can't see how you can
interpret it that way.
>>>> and to make the page look a lively a bit, i was going to have an icon
>>>> displayed in the frame that i cannot access.
>>> You don't need frames for that. Probably you don't even need client-side
>>> scripting; :hover could suffice.
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
>> Yeah, we all know how well supported :hover is on images in the most
>> predominant browser on the web. Makes it pretty useless.
>
> You are missing the fact that these are graphical links.
Has nothing to do with whether it is a "graphical link" or not. Telling
someone to use something that is not supports in the most predominant
browser on the web is a wasted effort. It is almost as bad as telling
someone to use an IE-only feature.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
IE supports the :hover pseudo-class for `a' elements, too.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
Randy Webb
> Randy Webb wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/1/2007 5:24 AM:
>>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/30/2007 11:47 AM:
>>>>> Wael wrote:
>>>>>> and to make the page look a lively a bit, i was going to have an icon
>>>>>> displayed in the frame that i cannot access.
>>>>> You don't need frames for that. Probably you don't even need client-side
>>>>> scripting; :hover could suffice.
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
>>>> Yeah, we all know how well supported :hover is on images in the most
>>>> predominant browser on the web. Makes it pretty useless.
>>> You are missing the fact that these are graphical links.
>> Has nothing to do with whether it is a "graphical link" or not. Telling
>> someone to use something that is not supports in the most predominant
>> browser on the web is a wasted effort. It is almost as bad as telling
>> someone to use an IE-only feature.
>
> IE supports the :hover pseudo-class for `a' elements, too.
I will refrain from telling you "No shit, Sherlock" and simply tell you
that a :hover rollovers won't work in IE. The only thing you can do is
style the link itself, not change an image inside the link.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/1/2007 5:43 AM:
>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/1/2007 5:24 AM:
>>>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/30/2007 11:47
>>>>> AM:
>>>>>> Wael wrote:
>>>>>>> and to make the page look a lively a bit, i was going to have
>>>>>>> an icon displayed in the frame that i cannot access.
>>>>>> You don't need frames for that. Probably you don't even need
>>>>>> client-side scripting; :hover could suffice.
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
>>>>> Yeah, we all know how well supported :hover is on images in the
>>>>> most predominant browser on the web. Makes it pretty useless.
>>>> You are missing the fact that these are graphical links.
>>> Has nothing to do with whether it is a "graphical link" or not.
>>> Telling someone to use something that is not supports in the most
>>> predominant browser on the web is a wasted effort. It is almost as
>>> bad as telling someone to use an IE-only feature.
>> IE supports the :hover pseudo-class for `a' elements, too.
>
> I will refrain from telling you "No shit, Sherlock"
That is wise.
> and simply tell you that a :hover rollovers won't work in IE.
You are wrong, they do.
> The only thing you can do is style the link itself, not change an image
> inside the link.
Exactly, and that behavior is not restricted to IE. Therefore, you should
try http://PointedEars.de/scripts/test/dom/hoverMe/hoverMe-css
However, since image display support is separate from CSS support, and
prefecthing does not need to be available, I prefer to use the scripting
approach.
BTW, IE 7 does support :hover for other elements than A. I have tested it
successfully for DIV, P, IMG, DT, and DD elements.
Randy Webb
> Randy Webb wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/1/2007 5:43 AM:
>>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/1/2007 5:24 AM:
>>>>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/30/2007 11:47
>>>>>> AM:
>>>>>>> Wael wrote:
>>>>>>>> and to make the page look a lively a bit, i was going to have
>>>>>>>> an icon displayed in the frame that i cannot access.
>>>>>>> You don't need frames for that. Probably you don't even need
>>>>>>> client-side scripting; :hover could suffice.
>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
>>>>>> Yeah, we all know how well supported :hover is on images in the
>>>>>> most predominant browser on the web. Makes it pretty useless.
>>>>> You are missing the fact that these are graphical links.
>>>> Has nothing to do with whether it is a "graphical link" or not.
>>>> Telling someone to use something that is not supports in the most
>>>> predominant browser on the web is a wasted effort. It is almost as
>>>> bad as telling someone to use an IE-only feature.
>>> IE supports the :hover pseudo-class for `a' elements, too.
>> I will refrain from telling you "No shit, Sherlock"
>
> That is wise.
Only because I don't want to read your whining.
>> and simply tell you that a :hover rollovers won't work in IE.
>
> You are wrong, they do.
>
>> The only thing you can do is style the link itself, not change an image
>> inside the link.
>
> Exactly, and that behavior is not restricted to IE. Therefore, you should
> try http://PointedEars.de/scripts/test/dom/hoverMe/hoverMe-css
No thanks, I prefer solid solutions.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
My solution is the proof that :hover rollovers with images would work in IE,
which proves you wrong. But you are unwilling or incapable of admitting
that. I would not be surprised if you had not even looked at the code
before replying. You have also snipped the provision that I included for my
solution, considering the rest of your behavior, probably intentionally.
Wael
> <iframe style="position:absolute;left:200px;top:200px;"
> src="iframeSRC.html" name="myIFrame"></iframe>
>
> change the iframeSRC.html to your page. Then tinker around with the top
> and left to get it where you want it. Then simply target="myIFrame" on
> your links to open them in the IFrame.
>
for me. I like the idea of having everything on one page. I've tried
the iframes, but i ended up with scrollbars in the main text area.
that's why i had to split the page into multiple frames.
I am not a web programmer that's why i am using an archaic technology.
It is basic html
Randy Webb
> Randy Webb wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/1/2007 8:26 AM:
>>> Randy Webb wrote:
<snip>
>>>> and simply tell you that a :hover rollovers won't work in IE.
>>> You are wrong, they do.
<sarcasm>
Yes, you are right. I just tested it on IE6 and they work flawlessly there.
</sarcasm>
No, they do not work in IE6.
>>>> The only thing you can do is style the link itself, not change an image
>>>> inside the link.
>>> Exactly, and that behavior is not restricted to IE. Therefore, you should
>>> try http://PointedEars.de/scripts/test/dom/hoverMe/hoverMe-css
>> No thanks, I prefer solid solutions.
>
> My solution is the proof that :hover rollovers with images would work in IE,
> which proves you wrong.
And it works in IE6? I am impressed if it does. My testing shows otherwise.
> But you are unwilling or incapable of admitting that.
I would never disagree with them working in IE7. I admit it. I know it.
I never said different.
> I would not be surprised if you had not even looked at the code before replying.
Then you are dumber than I thought you were.
> You have also snipped the provision that I included for my
> solution, considering the rest of your behavior, probably
> intentionally.
Which part of it? That you preferred a script solution? If you prefer a
script solution then offering a less-than-optimal CSS solution doesn't
make a lot of sense. Or, the part about testing in IE?
This is what you wrote about testing:
> BTW, IE 7 does support :hover for other elements than A. I have tested it
> successfully for DIV, P, IMG, DT, and DD elements.
I have tested it successfully for any element in HTML4.01 Strict.
Doesn't mean a whole lot. Perhaps you mean to say you tested it and it
supports it for those elements. All it takes to "successfully test" in
IE is to simply test it. Doesn't mean anything else and I felt no need
to point that out to you. Perhaps you should proof-read what you write
before you post it :)
> PointedEars
Are you ever going to fix your broken signature?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/1/2007 10:10 AM:
>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/1/2007 8:26 AM:
>>>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>>>> and simply tell you that a :hover rollovers won't work in IE.
>>>> You are wrong, they do.
>
> <sarcasm>
> Yes, you are right. I just tested it on IE6 and they work flawlessly there.
> </sarcasm>
>
> No, they do not work in IE6.
I don't know what the problem is with your IE 6, but they work fine here:
http://PointedEars.de/scripts/test/dom/hoverMe/hoverMe-css-ie6-proof-of-concept
http://PointedEars.de/scripts/test/dom/hoverMe/hoverMe-css-ie6-full-version
PointedEars
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> I am not a web programmer that's why i am using an archaic technology.
> It is basic html
CSS :hover has nothing to do with programming, as have `div'
and `iframe' elements nothing to do with not being basic HTML.
PointedEars
--
"Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't
prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.)"
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>