|
Paul Riley wrote:
I assume it's not working because the scope of...
Oh man the light just went on and owners arrived home (home being my brain.)  
You are two inches from the answer. The answer is to do with the control life cycle rather than scope, but your scope idea twigged me to the life cycle bit. i.e. I need to be assigning the event handlers and everything else in the OnInnit method/event/function/whatever-the-right-label-is-but-who-really-cares-huh and not the Render. Render is done almost last, already past the event firing stage.
*sigh* One of those "lets be dumb" days
Thanks Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
You know what's really sickening? I just came to the same conclusion but you got in before I could post an extra reply.
Ho hum... doesn't matter as long as you got it working
Paul
Life is just a sexually transmitted desease - Matthew Wright (ex-journalist, TV presenter) 10-Oct-02
I finally have a sig! - Paul Riley (part-time deity) 10-Oct-02
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Riley wrote:
Ho hum... doesn't matter as long as you got it working
But it does, it is the thought that counts here, so thank you 
I am just really glad my problem was something simple and not that I had to implement more delegates and interfaces and what not. Go .NET!
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to test my ASP.NET app with SSL to make sure all the links work etc before I publish it on the main site.
Can I get or generate a test SSL certificate for this purpose?
When I go to my main site I can use a shared SSL certificate (cheaper) are there any known problems with using Shared SSL and an ASP.NET app (codebehind). Or should I use a full blown one (more costly).
TIA
Shaun
Stupidity dies.
The end of future offspring.
Evolution wins.
- A Darwin Awards Haiku
|
|
|
|
|
you can go to www.verisign.com[^] and register a "test" certificate. After a month they will email you and ask you to buy a proper one. Ignore them and carry on. We purchased one for our live server from them, but then needed to test the stuff on our dev server, so we did this. Our month has passed, but the test cert is still working nicely
Dave Goodman on funny error messages:
It is a definite no-no to run BITMAP as a user command. Your nose will grow, your lawn will die, your hair will fall out, and your first-born will marry an aardvark. Shame on you!
|
|
|
|
|
thanks megan
Stupidity dies.
The end of future offspring.
Evolution wins.
- A Darwin Awards Haiku
|
|
|
|
|
Pleasure
Dave Goodman on funny error messages:
It is a definite no-no to run BITMAP as a user command. Your nose will grow, your lawn will die, your hair will fall out, and your first-born will marry an aardvark. Shame on you!
|
|
|
|
|
And go there fast. They slashed 50% of their workforce lately. (F'Cpy for more details).
She's so dirty, she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back.
|
|
|
|
|
you can also install a "MS Certificate Server",and get a server certificate from it!
it's distributed with Win2000 and you can find it in your Win2000 CDROM!
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm.. I always seem to find the hard route. Thanks (for next time) 
Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator. - Marc Clifton
|
|
|
|
|
When IE connect to a website using SSL,IE will display a dialog to ask user to select a certificate of him(or her).
In fact,IE connect to the system's CSP and search user's certificate.
my question is:
if my certificate is stored in other place,but not in the system's CSP or a SmartCard,how can I have IE use my certificate when it connect to a SSL website?
For example,I store my certificate(and private key) in my own USB card,which is not compatible with the SmartCard.What can I do?
I think that if I can hold up the event which occur when IE connect to the system CSP for requiring a user certificate(and private key),it will be simple!
thanks advance!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all. I am very sad 
OK, I have the following HTML. A table with 4 rows, each row have variable cols and contains a table in the last column. Now my understanding is the the "inner" table should not affect how the outer table is "rendered". So what we have here is:
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width=100%>
<tr><td colspan=3>
<table width=100% border=1>
<tr>
<td width=100px></td><td></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td></tr>
<tr><td width=15px></td><td colspan=2>
<table width=100% border=1>
<tr>
<td width=100px></td><td></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td></tr>
<tr><td width=15px></td><td width=15px></td><td colspan=1>
<table width=100% border=1>
<tr>
<td width=100px></td><td></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td></tr>
<tr><td width=15px></td><td colspan=2>
<table width=100% border=1>
<tr>
<td width=100px></td><td></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td></tr>
</table>
Now if you will kind enough to paste that in a blank page, you will see all looks well, especially when resizing the browser sideways. IOW the left hand "padding" TD's stays fixed. All happy, all OK. Btw, I use IE6 XP SP1.
Now change the the width attribute of the first inner table's TD from 100px to 150px. This shouldn't have an effect on the the outer table, yet when you now resize the browser sideways, the padding becomes relative. Now HTF is this possible? If you are still interested at this stage, try playing around with the other widths, you will see even stranger things happening, eg some rows are fixed and some are "variable".
Is it me or is this just the way it is? It makes tables very inflexable indeed. [edit] The same page with different widths for the TD's renders correctly in Mozilla 1.1 and Netscape 6.2.3, not in IE 5 however. IE 0 - NS 1. [/edit]
All help appreciated. Cheers.
PS: Message intentionally posted in text.
Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and have his shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't tested the code, but btw never put </td> tags in begin of lines. There is a known IE rendering bug about it. Put </td> in tail instead.
She's so dirty, she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back.
|
|
|
|
|
__Stephane Rodriguez__ wrote:
never put tags in begin of lines. There is a known IE rendering bug about it.
Didn't know that ( pretty gay IMHO ). Thanx 
Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and have his shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote:
never put tags in begin of lines. There is a known IE rendering bug about it.
I haven't had any problem with it yet... must be in older versions.
Word of the day: Rotundacrat
Extra Credit will be awarded for: Quasimobo...
|
|
|
|
|
The IE rendered is highly sensitive on the actual content inside the <td> ... </td> tags. In your sample, there is nothing, that's why from what I see IE behaves like mad. Usually web designers either fill table with content( ), or stretch a 1-pixel image (you know, that transp gif) to the actual width or height, so to achieve a pixel-perfect rendering.
Btw, using % in several places makes IE think that the overall outside table rendering relies on ratios rather than absolute values. That's probably why it changes with the IE client size.
She's so dirty, she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back.
|
|
|
|
|
Final words, don't expect the same rendering between browsers.
Don't even expect the same rendering between two IE versions.
Don't even even expect the same rendering between a given IE build, and next.
She's so dirty, she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back.
|
|
|
|
|
__Stephane Rodriguez__ wrote:
Final words, don't expect the same rendering between browsers.
Don't even expect the same rendering between two IE versions.
Don't even even expect the same rendering between a given IE build, and next.
Erm, doesn't that defeat the point of a standard, namely HTML? This is basic HTML, not even beyond IE 3/ Netscape 3.
Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and have his shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote:
Erm, doesn't that defeat the point of a standard, namely HTML? This is basic HTML, not even beyond IE 3/ Netscape 3.
That's not standard stuff. When it comes to user agent implementation of imbricated table rendering, the W3C has done a pretty great job of not taking into account all possible implementation details. Resulting in the mess we know today.
Besides that, the way you use "px" refers to CSS styles, which adds behaviours depending on the browser. It's better to put a number without suffix : no px, no pt, no em.
About Html, it's all about hints and tries. I am afraid you can spend a whole week on it.
She's so dirty, she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back.
|
|
|
|
|
__Stephane Rodriguez__ wrote:
Besides that, the way you use "px" refers to CSS styles, which adds behaviours depending on the browser. It's better to put a number without suffix : no px, no pt, no em.
That doesnt do anything Same result.
__Stephane Rodriguez__ wrote:
About Html, it's all about hints and tries. I am afraid you can spend a whole week on it.
It's gonna take a shitload longer to "fix" this than the 3 weeks I have spend doing the site I am working.
Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and have his shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, papaoutage off.
<table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width=100%>
<tr><td colspan=3>
<table width=100% border=1>
<tr>
<td width=150><img src="transp.gif" width=150 height=1></td><td></td>
</tr>
</table></td></tr>
<tr><td width=15></td><td colspan=2>
<table width=100% border=1>
<tr>
<td width=100><img src="transp.gif" width=100 height=1></td><td></td>
</tr>
</table></td></tr>
<tr><td width=15></td><td width=15></td><td colspan=1>
<table width=100% border=1>
<tr>
<td width=100><img src="transp.gif" width=100 height=1></td><td></td>
</tr>
</table></td></tr>
<tr><td width=15></td><td colspan=2>
<table width=100% border=1>
<tr>
<td width=100><img src="transp.gif" width=100 height=1></td><td></td>
</tr>
</table></td></tr>
</table>
She's so dirty, she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Stephane
Sorry, I dont understand  . What will the "transparent" gifs do? Can I just use a 1x1 pixel gif?
Thanx
PS: TD is described as a content container, meaning it should be able to take any content within.
Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and have his shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
This trans.gif is a keyed 1-pixel GIF file. Stretching this image makes IE and other browsers act as if it was true content (in fact, images are content, like text). The fine thing is that if the image width and height are indicated, then IE and other browsers don't even have to figure out the actual content rect.
The keyed thing is to allow the GIF to be hidden (it doesn't even obscure the page background color).
This technique is used in many many websites.
She's so dirty, she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back.
|
|
|
|
|
__Stephane Rodriguez__ wrote:
This trans.gif is a keyed 1-pixel GIF file. Stretching this image makes IE and other browsers act as if it was true content (in fact, images are content, like text). The fine thing is that if the image width and height are indicated, then IE and other browsers don't even have to figure out the actual content rect.
Thanx Stephane, I see that it works, but now IE uses the content to set the width of the TD. It seems that if TD width > content width (TD width=200) then it messes up ALL following TD width's. This is wrong behaviour. Why can ONE one tables TD's width affect the outer tables TD's width?
So what do I do if I need to put text inside and not just "blanks"?
This from the HTML 3.2 spec:
The minimum and maximum width of nested tables contribute to the minimum and maximum width of the cell in which they occur. Once the width requirements are known for the top level table, the column widths for that table can be assigned. This allows the widths of nested tables to be assigned and hence in turn the column widths of such tables. If practical, all columns should be assigned at least their minimum widths. It is suggested that any surplus space is then shared out proportional to the difference between the minimum and maximum width requirements of each column.
This confirms that any nested table has no effect on the outer table. So if the nested table's width is fixed then it affects the outer table's column, but if the nested table's width is 100% then it should fill the outer table's TD, to whatever size that maybe.
I have another idea that I am going to try with the transparent gif.
CHeers
Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and have his shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote:
So what do I do if I need to put text inside and not just "blanks"?
Usually web designers insert a fake row (1-pixel height) made of all the td columns with only stretched transp images as content. This sets the widths of all columns.
Then all "data" rows follow.
Same stuff for solving the height problem. It gets tricky when you try to solve pixel-perfectness for both width and height at the same time. That's why most web pages are in fact properly handled in the horizontal direction only.
She's so dirty, she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
