|
hi,
i've got a simple asp program which will execute an *.exe once the button is clicked. the exe will be executed and the user will be able to view the execution-i don't want the user to view the execution. i need to hide the window where the exe is executed but couldn't find a way to do so. below is the vbscript that executes the exe when the button is clicked.
<script language=VBScript>
sub validateForm()
test.action="process.exe"
test.submit
end sub
</script>
hope someone can help me. thx in advance.
rgds,shan
|
|
|
|
|
I have a frameset with two frames. For both frames, I set scrollbar=auto (which is by default). So when there is a lot of content, scrollbars appear, and when it fits on one page, there is no scrollbars.
However, I notice that when the scrollbars are not visible, there is still some whitespace reserved for it all the way down the right side of the screen.
I notice this because in the body of the page, I have a DIV element and I set its background color to black. And the black does not reach all the way to the right edge of the screen.
How can I eliminate the white space?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this would work for your situation, but in the body tag of the actual html file being displayed in the frame, put style="overflow:auto;"
NATHAN RIDLEY
Web Application Developer
generalgherkin@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
Which is faster? As an example, CodeProject uses tables for their forums, is that faster or would it be faster if they were based in DIVs?
Rocky Moore <><
|
|
|
|
|
I dont think that one is faster than the other in terms of rendering.
Obviously a table is more HTML code than just a DIV but provides better layout flexibility.
I personally find tables very usefull and I prefere them when it comes to layout.
In addition, the table tag is older and is supported properly by all browsers. Of course, now, the DIV is also supported but not fully and properly by older browsers.
If your web page is to be viewed by older browsers I would suggest to use tables. Otherwise, it doesnt really make a difference. At least this is what I believe...
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
People with browsers that can't handle DIVs properly don't deserve to see web pages correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
Many people believe that...
But it is the biggest mistake that you can do. even if these people are only the 5% of your target group then you allready lost some potential customers.
If you make web pages for fun, ok I agree... But I make e-commerce sites and if 1 person cant view the web site, then I have 1 less customer...
So I cannot afford not to provide a web page that is 100% compatible with all browsers.Believe it or not but there are people who do use older browsers..
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
And if your site maintenance costs are 10% higher in order to support support and additional 1% of your possible audience is the trade off worth it? Depends on your cost/revenue model of course, but you'd better think it through.
Do you support lynx as well? How about screen readers?
It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Based on log analysis of existing traffic I've decided the reduced maintenance of only supporting CSS capable browsers is worth the loosing the tiny percentage of really backwards browsers.
--
-Blake (com/bcdev/blake)
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
I have already developed a generic CMS that can detect the browser and serve the client with the correct content and layout. Therefore all I have to do now is to create different templates for every browser...
So it is worth of speding a nother 2-3 days to make 10 different templates... and gain that 1%
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
Which is exactly what I said - there's no definitive answer on this one. You have to look at your own cost/revenue model and see what makes sense. If you have content that is repetitive enough to be put into a short list of templates then making templates per target can work. Even then you have to decide though which targets you will support. Is it worth it to make templates for Lynx or Netscape 2.x? You always draw the line somewhere.
--
-Blake (com/bcdev/blake)
|
|
|
|
|
You are right...
I make sure I support IE and Netscape from version 3 and above and the opera from version 5.
Then I make sure that these browsers work on all OS. for example IE on MAC OS is different than IE on Windows.
I need, more or less 2-3 days to make templates to support these browsers.
The bottom line is that I agree with you. On the other hand, our friend said that people who use browsers that dont support DIV tags dont deserve to view the web page. I was trying to make a point that this is a wrong approach and that when you make web sites that provide income you need to think a litle bit more about it.
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
theJazzyBrain wrote:
people who use browsers that dont support DIV tags dont deserve to view the web page
lol
I was just being wilfully perverse. You both are right of course - it depends on your model.
|
|
|
|
|
theJazzyBrain wrote:
I dont think that one is faster than the other in terms of rendering.
Obviously a table is more HTML code than just a DIV but provides better layout flexibility.
Actually, there are problems with tables not to mention the hassle of using those 1x1 gifs to blank out cells. Long tables in IE render slowly unless your table contains fixed widths. I just do not know if similar problems exist if you use nested DIVS.
theJazzyBrain wrote:
I personally find tables very usefull and I prefere them when it comes to layout.
I used to in my earlier days. But after being told enough times that tables are for data not layout it finally started to soak in. DIVs can be a pain to display the same in all late model browsers since they do not seem to have the same rules applied per the CSS standard. But if you stay clear of padding and use more nested DIVs many of the problems clear up. It is nice not to have the need of the 1x1 gif anymore 
My biggest headache has been Mozilla. The browser follows the standard on a couple of issues but does not display the same as Opera or IE. So I always question what the standard should be but code around the issues
Also, as we move on to XHTML, this will become even a more serious point and I figure many will start to move away from tables.
theJazzyBrain wrote:
In addition, the table tag is older and is supported properly by all browsers. Of course, now, the DIV is also supported but not fully and properly by older browsers.
That part does not matter in my work anymore. I figure if a person cannot upgrade to a useable browser, there will be more problems than just the browser. I currently code for IE 5.0 or later, Opera 7.0 or later, Netscape 7.0 or later (do not even get me going on thier old garbage) or Mozilla 1.4 or later. Anything ealier than that, people will need to upgrade.
Rocky Moore <><
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky Moore wrote:
Actually, there are problems with tables
Tell me about the problems...
Rocky Moore wrote:
Long tables in IE render slowly unless your table contains fixed widths
I was not aware of that. But if it takes 1 second instead of 0.5 second, does it really make a difference?
Rocky Moore wrote:
DIVs can be a pain to display the same in all late model browsers since they do not seem to have the same rules applied per the CSS standard
This is what I am talking about. This is why I prefere TABLES
Rocky Moore wrote:
Also, as we move on to XHTML, this will become even a more serious point and I figure many will start to move away from tables.
What do you mean? What is serious about XHTML and TABLES?
Rocky Moore wrote:
That part does not matter in my work anymore. I figure if a person cannot upgrade to a useable browser, there will be more problems than just the browser.
As I said in the other threads. To some extend I agree with you. Its just a mater of how much time you need to spent on supporting older browsers. You asked asked about DIVs and TABLEs and I gave you my opinion...
I respect your opinion. I might be wrong, you might be wrong... We both made our point.
At the end its what you prefere to use. there are good and bad points for both... I personaly like tables coz I know how different browsers render them and I am very familiar with them. I find it easy to use tables.
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
theJazzyBrain wrote:
I was not aware of that. But if it takes 1 second instead of 0.5 second, does it really make a difference?
I guess it would depend on the content. A few seconds waiting for something to appear on your screen is annoying if you have broadband, but if you are using dialup and it takes 20-30 seconds of a blank screen waiting for content, can lose a visitor quickly.
theJazzyBrain wrote:
This is what I am talking about. This is why I prefere TABLES
Well, there is about the same amount of problems with tables, empty cells, borders and nestings. I think one of the biggest problems for me is that even VS.NET does not make working with DIVs as easy as it should. Maybe by VS.NET 2005 we will finally have decent editing 
Coding by hand though, I do like DIVs as it appears much cleaner. Just wish Mozilla handled percentages with DIVs better. That along with vertical centering have been the biggest stumbling blocks. Oh yeah, and I cannot forget padding. When you pad DIVs on Mozilla it will add the padding to the height or width regardless if your content is smaller than the fixed size. IE only adds it to the width and/or height if the content + padding is larger than the fixed size. This is one matter I disagree with the CSS standard, I believe the padding should be applied to the content not the frame. While I am at it, I also think the designers of CSS went the wrong direction by not allowing vertical centering on all tags instead of just table cells!
theJazzyBrain wrote:
What do you mean? What is serious about XHTML and TABLES?
Well, since atrributes are moving off the tag and going to style sheets it will finally make many that have abused tables (as I have for years) realize that you might as well move on to other methods of layout and leave tables to the tast for which they were designed.
theJazzyBrain wrote:
Its just a mater of how much time you need to spent on supporting older browsers
Well, it is more than the time involved, you are spending time on people that are not probably going to be a good market for you. If they do not update their browsers which are free, it is doubtful they will purchase any of your services. That is why I consider it truly waste of time.
Same thing happened in the older days when people stayed with Windows 3.1 even after Windows 95 had been out for a couple years. You waste all that time to make your products compatible with Windows 3.1 users but they would not usually buy the software, your purchases usually came from Win 95 or later users.
If they do not feel they need current technology, they usually are not ready to buy anything either.
It depends on what you wish to spend your time and resources. Personally, I would rather spend my time on expanding my services with more features than on people who will probably never be a customer.
Rocky Moore <><
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky Moore wrote:
Well, there is about the same amount of problems with tables, empty cells, borders and nestings.
I agree with the empty cells, but what is the problem with borders and nesting? I have been nesting tables and I am happy with the result.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Well, since atrributes are moving off the tag and going to style sheets it will finally make many that have abused tables (as I have for years) realize that you might as well move on to other methods of layout and leave tables to the tast for which they were designed.
I am sorry but I will have to disagree on this. Many books or tutorials that I have read refer to tables as a way to provide layout to your pages. And if they dont they surely not refer to DIVs as a way to provide layout...
and I quote from : http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#h-11.1
The HTML table model allows authors to arrange data -- text, preformatted text, images, links, forms, form fields, other tables, etc. -- into rows and columns of cells
in other words, to layout the page.
here : http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-DIV
The DIV and SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id and class attributes, offer a generic mechanism for adding structure to documents. These elements define content to be inline (SPAN) or block-level (DIV) but impose no other presentational idioms on the content. Thus, authors may use these elements in conjunction with style sheets, the lang attribute, etc., to tailor HTML to their own needs and tastes.
So... I am a bit confused...
LOL...
;P
The bottom line is that I will not stop using TABLES, at least in the near future coz I am happy with them...
It was nice to see other peoples opinions though...
I doesnt really make much difference...
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
theJazzyBrain wrote:
I agree with the empty cells, but what is the problem with borders and nesting? I have been nesting tables and I am happy with the result.
Nested cells have the problem of speed of course. A browser has to make multiple passes if your tables to not specific the exact height and width of all columns and rows. If you have a table nested, it repeats those passes for each level of nesting. I do not know if this happens with DIV's though, and that was kind of the main focus of the question I started with.
There is also formatting problems with nested tables on older browsers. I do not remember exactly what it was, but know I was bit with it many times. Had to do with background colors or images and the background of the page, if I remember correctly.
Borders do not display the same on all browsers. While one may display them as a 3d format others may display them as simple line. The only way around in older browsers is to not use the Table's border but a Style border for the table.
theJazzyBrain wrote:
I am sorry but I will have to disagree on this. Many books or tutorials that I have read refer to tables as a way to provide layout to your pages. And if they dont they surely not refer to DIVs as a way to provide layout...
If you are reading books instructing you to use tables to layout a page, then they are the wrong books. Tables are meant for tabular type data. Tables is more of grouping the data rather than its presentation. Many of us never noticed that (me for one, abused tables for years - now trying to clean up my tracks  ) and saw it was handy to arrange content on a page which led us down a path that no longer has to be traveled since we have CSS.
Yes, I can quote from the W3C also:
Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables
It is not saying that you use the tables to layout your "page" but the tabular data. Your quote says ".. authors to arrange data .." not a page. If you have tabular type data, then a table was designed for that.
theJazzyBrain wrote:
So... I am a bit confused...
Yes, it would seem so. The DIV tag is without formatting of its own other than being a block type while span is a generic of in-line types. It is the Syle (or Style Sheet Class) that gives it formatting. This allows for greater control on the formatting than to have a tag that restricts your formatting to a specific type. This helps keep your "presentation" code seperate and allows you multiple ways to view the same data without changing its structure. For an example, it might be formatted for a mobile output with one CSS and formatted for your montior with another. Page doesn't change, just the presentation part that is housed in the CSS.
As an extreme example of what you can do with simple DIVs, have you ever seen ZenGarden?
http://www.csszengarden.com/[^]
Quite a site! Just browse the different designs under "Select Desgin". It is hard to imagine the design does not change by the CSS does and it can change so much.
theJazzyBrain wrote:
The bottom line is that I will not stop using TABLES, at least in the near future coz I am happy with them...
No one said you had to, if you want to design your sites formatting everything with tables that your prerogative. It is just not the recommended way to layout a site.
The future is still promising for tables, however it is focused more to organizing tabular data along with summaries of the collection contains in tables.
Rocky Moore <><
|
|
|
|
|
I am developing a premium content web site and need a solution that will prevent resources (HTML and images) from being stolen.
I want to make sure that my valuable research reports and photos can be viewed for only a limited amount of time (that I determine) while disabling common options like "View Source", "Save As", "Print" etc.
Does anyone know of a solution that can effectively shut down content piracy?
Bud McFadin
bud_mcfadin@ftml.net
|
|
|
|
|
None of them really work. They can't, by definition. If you can see it or hear it, you can save it. Welcome to the digital world.
That said, MS has a new offering for exactly what you want. The idea is horrible, in my always humble opinion, but here's the link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/rma/introduction.asp
--
-Blake (com/bcdev/blake)
|
|
|
|
|
Blake
I am not so sure that MS has what Bud needs.
Bud wants to prevent resources from being stolen.
The MS solution does NOT support Rights-managed HTML that references external script or behaviors which is part of every decent online contnet site ( see http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/rma/rmh.asp
I suggest that Bud tries a solution called AllRights ( http://www.allrightsdrm.com ) which claims to protect all online resources.
Let me know what you think of the solution
Lionel
Lionel Taylor
lionel_taylor@juno.com
|
|
|
|
|
*chuckles* And what exactly would you relationship with AllRights be, Lionel?
The main point of my reply was that DRM doesn't work, period. Not Microsoft's, not AllRights. If you can seen or heard by a human, it can be copied.
All DRM solutions do are make the copying more annoying. In a connected world that doesn't help either, as only one person need copy the original and then that non-DRM digital copy can be passed around freely.
This is not an ethical judgement, it is simply a fact that can't be ignored. I support copyright in principle, but it is impossible to implement technical solutions that enforce copyright of digital works.
Regarding the AllRight product in particular, it's the typical ActiveX control viewer sort of tool. I'm unimpressed. And clearly what it renders can be captured trivially off the screen without giving your ActiveX control a chance to intervene.
--
-Blake (com/bcdev/blake)
|
|
|
|
|
There are many ways to have a go at this, such as disabling caching, right-click, etc. Your main problem here, though, is it's not 100% foolproof. Jpeg/HTML etc are not an encrypted format, and as such, the very fact that they must be copied to the client computer means that if the user *really* wants a copy of what's in the browser, they can get it. A savvy user, at absolute worst, can hit the print-screen button to steal your images. Second to that, you're going to have a hard time getting around the fact that you can right-click the system menu icon (top left corner of the browser window) and tell Internet Explorer to save a local copy of the page ("Make Available Offline"). This force-caches the files to the user's temporary internet files folder, where they can then grab a copy of what they want.
NATHAN RIDLEY
Web Application Developer
generalgherkin@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
I have two web applications, I want that once user login the first application, the user information will be transfered to the second application automatically.
I use session variables to store user information. All that I want are:
1. The second application creates a new session
2. The second application store user information in the session variables
Is it possible to call an ASP page of another application from an ASP page of the current application?
Please help me.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that you should be able to call another page as long as you use the full URL...
Dont know how you will deal with security...
theJazzyBrain
Wise is he who asks good questions, not he who gives good answers
|
|
|
|
|
I can call another page at client-side but not from server-side. All that I want is calling (or another way) from server-side.
If you know, please show me in details.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
