Hi y'all:<br />
<br />
We're trying to pt something on angelfire -- and having some problems. The code is for mouseovers with one mouseover opening a new window with no toolerbars or scrollbar. Works fine on my webserver (gem-of-r.com) but not on angelfire. Reason: angelfire puts window.open in their code that is automaticaly put on each page, and the code uses window.open and onClick to open the new window with no toolbars, etc.<br />
<br />
Any suggestions?<!--content-->http://www.angelfire.com/goth2/gemmy/ <br />
<br />
Here ya go -- this is a fast upload since the one I'm trying to help isn't online tonite -- however it has everything except some images that they did.<br />
<br />
The mouseovers & window.open are there. The bottom button is the only one linked and it is supposed to open a small window for the music.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks
<br />
Gemmy<!--content-->You should start with valid JavaScript in your onclick handler. Instead of <br />
<br />
onClick="window.open('http://www.angelfire.com/goth2/gravitykill/Murata/Html/music.html', 'Software', config='height=325,width=400')"<br />
<br />
use <br />
<br />
onClick="window.open('http://www.angelfire.com/goth2/gravitykill/Murata/Html/music.html', 'Software','height=325,width=400'); return false"<br />
<br />
See <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/js/client/jsref/contents.htm">http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manu ... ntents.htm</a><!-- m --> for some details.<!--content-->Dave, <br />
<br />
Please note that, in my post above, I have suggested that instead of using a piece of JavaScipt with that includes the undocumented config=, one should use a piece of JavaScript without that erronious piece.<br />
<br />
And be comforted, I have taken "#$^%" in your post above in the abusive sense in which it was intended.<!--content-->config='height=325, width=400' could evaluate to either 'height=325, width=400' or true. Do you know for certain that the former is the case in JavaScript? And can you dircet me to either JavaScript or ECMA-262 Script documetation to back up your claim?<!--content-->Forgive me. Yes, we've already established that you do not know what documentation is and that you concern yourself only with things that work with Microsoft. <br />
<br />
The problem here is a very real one. While it is readily apparent what is meant by<br />
<br />
foe = fum<br />
<br />
it is not so apparent what is meant by<br />
<br />
fie = (foe = fum)<br />
<br />
It all depends on how the language was set up. Clearly the first step is assign the value of fum to foe in some way. But what does the operation return? It could be the boolean value true to indicate that the assignment was successful. It could be some undefined value to indicate that you aught not be using the operator in this way. And because it is possible that the rules of the language do not specify what is returned, you cannot know what that will be on all browsers by simply testing it on a few of them. <br />
<br />
However, being someone who does know the meaning of the word 'documentation' I have looked up the specified behavior of the "Simple Assignment Operator" in JavaScript. From the ECMA-262 specification:<br />
11.13.1 Simple Assignment ( = )<br />
The production AssignmentExpression : LeftHandSideExpression = AssignmentExpression is evaluated as follows:<br />
1. Evaluate LeftHandSideExpression.<br />
2. Evaluate AssignmentExpression.<br />
3. Call GetValue(Result(2)).<br />
4. Call PutValue(Result(1), Result(3)).<br />
5. Return Result(3).Note that this is very different from the way the Simple Assignment Operator works in Perl. There the LeftHandSideExpression is returned; and I suspect that the same is true in Java. <br />
<br />
But yes, I was incorrect to state that config='height=325,width=400' was invalid.<!--content-->Dave, I find it very interesting that when you admit you are wrong you are "big enough" and when someone else does it they are "full of a bull-sized load of malarky when you make idiotic remarks".<br />
<br />
Tell me, how come there is such a big difference between you and the rest of the world?<!--content-->Just some clarification. I didn't know that I was wrong from the get go. Dave challenged me and I asked for documnentation and he, as we know will have nothing to do with documentation. At that point we were equally in ignorance. Once I had time to sit down with my copy of ECMA-262 I was able to settle the matter and increase my level of knowlege. That Dave was correct this time was simply dumb luck. <br />
<br />
In philosophy and mathematics it is common to say that one doesn't know anything unless one knows it with certainty. And unless one consults the documentation then one has no certainty and hence no knowlege.<br />
<br />
And in Mathematics we have something know as the Identity Principal, if A=B and B=C then A=C. From that it follows that if "half-@$$ed" is standing in for something obscene and if that obscenity is abusive then "half-@$$ed" is no less abusive and the person using it is no less of an ass for doing so.<!--content-->Originally posted by Dave Clark <br />
Not "the rest of the world"... Only those who start out with idiotic (i.e., no true basis for) remarks meant to be highly insulting and proceed to give a big long explanation of why something works the way I said it did in the first place.<br />
<br />
<br />
What you write above is unfortunately not true. <br />
Eg you have at several times responded to posts from me with a very insulting and harsh language even when you where obviously wrong about facts, and even when proven wrong beyond any doubt did you apologize for being wrong nor for the language you use.<br />
<br />
So again you are using different rules for yourself and others. If I and others were to use the same languge with you as you do towards some of us you would likely be screaming loud and clear about how wrongly you were treadted.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You, by the way, combined two unrelated comments into one as if they were meant to be tied together (when, in fact [as stated], they weren't).<br />
<br />
<br />
The only 2 comments I "combined" was you blowing your own horn saying how greate you are that you can admit a mistake and then talking **** about someone else that admitted they were wrong.<br />
<br />
Those 2 things are exactly the same thing, 2 peoples being wrong. The only difference is that you consider yourself greate while others are the scum of the earth for the exact same thing.<!--content-->
<br />
We're trying to pt something on angelfire -- and having some problems. The code is for mouseovers with one mouseover opening a new window with no toolerbars or scrollbar. Works fine on my webserver (gem-of-r.com) but not on angelfire. Reason: angelfire puts window.open in their code that is automaticaly put on each page, and the code uses window.open and onClick to open the new window with no toolbars, etc.<br />
<br />
Any suggestions?<!--content-->http://www.angelfire.com/goth2/gemmy/ <br />
<br />
Here ya go -- this is a fast upload since the one I'm trying to help isn't online tonite -- however it has everything except some images that they did.<br />
<br />
The mouseovers & window.open are there. The bottom button is the only one linked and it is supposed to open a small window for the music.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks
<br />Gemmy<!--content-->You should start with valid JavaScript in your onclick handler. Instead of <br />
<br />
onClick="window.open('http://www.angelfire.com/goth2/gravitykill/Murata/Html/music.html', 'Software', config='height=325,width=400')"<br />
<br />
use <br />
<br />
onClick="window.open('http://www.angelfire.com/goth2/gravitykill/Murata/Html/music.html', 'Software','height=325,width=400'); return false"<br />
<br />
See <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/js/client/jsref/contents.htm">http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manu ... ntents.htm</a><!-- m --> for some details.<!--content-->Dave, <br />
<br />
Please note that, in my post above, I have suggested that instead of using a piece of JavaScipt with that includes the undocumented config=, one should use a piece of JavaScript without that erronious piece.<br />
<br />
And be comforted, I have taken "#$^%" in your post above in the abusive sense in which it was intended.<!--content-->config='height=325, width=400' could evaluate to either 'height=325, width=400' or true. Do you know for certain that the former is the case in JavaScript? And can you dircet me to either JavaScript or ECMA-262 Script documetation to back up your claim?<!--content-->Forgive me. Yes, we've already established that you do not know what documentation is and that you concern yourself only with things that work with Microsoft. <br />
<br />
The problem here is a very real one. While it is readily apparent what is meant by<br />
<br />
foe = fum<br />
<br />
it is not so apparent what is meant by<br />
<br />
fie = (foe = fum)<br />
<br />
It all depends on how the language was set up. Clearly the first step is assign the value of fum to foe in some way. But what does the operation return? It could be the boolean value true to indicate that the assignment was successful. It could be some undefined value to indicate that you aught not be using the operator in this way. And because it is possible that the rules of the language do not specify what is returned, you cannot know what that will be on all browsers by simply testing it on a few of them. <br />
<br />
However, being someone who does know the meaning of the word 'documentation' I have looked up the specified behavior of the "Simple Assignment Operator" in JavaScript. From the ECMA-262 specification:<br />
11.13.1 Simple Assignment ( = )<br />
The production AssignmentExpression : LeftHandSideExpression = AssignmentExpression is evaluated as follows:<br />
1. Evaluate LeftHandSideExpression.<br />
2. Evaluate AssignmentExpression.<br />
3. Call GetValue(Result(2)).<br />
4. Call PutValue(Result(1), Result(3)).<br />
5. Return Result(3).Note that this is very different from the way the Simple Assignment Operator works in Perl. There the LeftHandSideExpression is returned; and I suspect that the same is true in Java. <br />
<br />
But yes, I was incorrect to state that config='height=325,width=400' was invalid.<!--content-->Dave, I find it very interesting that when you admit you are wrong you are "big enough" and when someone else does it they are "full of a bull-sized load of malarky when you make idiotic remarks".<br />
<br />
Tell me, how come there is such a big difference between you and the rest of the world?<!--content-->Just some clarification. I didn't know that I was wrong from the get go. Dave challenged me and I asked for documnentation and he, as we know will have nothing to do with documentation. At that point we were equally in ignorance. Once I had time to sit down with my copy of ECMA-262 I was able to settle the matter and increase my level of knowlege. That Dave was correct this time was simply dumb luck. <br />
<br />
In philosophy and mathematics it is common to say that one doesn't know anything unless one knows it with certainty. And unless one consults the documentation then one has no certainty and hence no knowlege.<br />
<br />
And in Mathematics we have something know as the Identity Principal, if A=B and B=C then A=C. From that it follows that if "half-@$$ed" is standing in for something obscene and if that obscenity is abusive then "half-@$$ed" is no less abusive and the person using it is no less of an ass for doing so.<!--content-->Originally posted by Dave Clark <br />
Not "the rest of the world"... Only those who start out with idiotic (i.e., no true basis for) remarks meant to be highly insulting and proceed to give a big long explanation of why something works the way I said it did in the first place.<br />
<br />
<br />
What you write above is unfortunately not true. <br />
Eg you have at several times responded to posts from me with a very insulting and harsh language even when you where obviously wrong about facts, and even when proven wrong beyond any doubt did you apologize for being wrong nor for the language you use.<br />
<br />
So again you are using different rules for yourself and others. If I and others were to use the same languge with you as you do towards some of us you would likely be screaming loud and clear about how wrongly you were treadted.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You, by the way, combined two unrelated comments into one as if they were meant to be tied together (when, in fact [as stated], they weren't).<br />
<br />
<br />
The only 2 comments I "combined" was you blowing your own horn saying how greate you are that you can admit a mistake and then talking **** about someone else that admitted they were wrong.<br />
<br />
Those 2 things are exactly the same thing, 2 peoples being wrong. The only difference is that you consider yourself greate while others are the scum of the earth for the exact same thing.<!--content-->