drop down menu

[WebcastMaker]

DHTML is simply a word made up by microsoft. It means nothing.

Not commenting on the usefulness or lack of usefulness of DHTML, but,
every word was originally made up by someone. The fact that Microsoft
made it up is irrelevant. DHTML is exactly as stated, a combination of
HTML, CSS and Javascript used to manipulate a web page.

 

[aa]

Dear rf,
trying to take revenge for your humiliation in "changes in HTML code are ignored by the browser (IE6)",
you exposed you naked bottom so invitingly, that one cannot pass by without giving it a good kick.

1.> >2. It is very complicated to make a DHTML menu to drop down from one frame

That was not the op's question. The question was how to make the target of
the link render in the other frame.

I feel sorry for you, my friend. The op's question actually reads:
"Or does anyone else has a good alternative to write a dropdown menu in html?"


2. > DHTML is simply a word made up by microsoft. It means nothing.

I see. Yet some idiots who are not as knowleadgeable as rf, write pretty good things using that meaningless DHTML. And most irritably, these things work. Would not it be nice, rf, if you could prohibit DHTML together with top-posting? You cannot? No fault of yours. The God usually gives no horns to a caw which is apt to butt.



3. > Trying to make a menu with javascript that does not fall back gracefully in

the absense of javascript (and most of them do not) is the same as turning
your server of for six weeks out of the year.

RF seems to write webpages for IE1 and NC0. If one has nothing to occupy himself, he/her can spend time in the 21st century writing code's versions for the browsers which do not support javascript and graphics.

4. > and what about the other couple of hundred browsers out there.

So what is your advice to the op? Not to use javascript at all? Or write couple of hundreds of the code versions to suit every brouser? Bravo, rf, you are as useful as a fart in a spacesuit !


5. > > You cannot make a decent menu with just classic HTML.

Oh yes I can. And what is "classic" HTML?

RF, are you OK? In the same line you admit that you have no clue of what is "classic" HTML and at the same time you claim you can make a decent menu "classic" HTML? Got a bit too tired?

Anyway, if you can, why did not you show us how to do that, as the op asked?

Instead you opted to be a smartarse:

"What menu? I see a bunch of select elements on a black background. I also see a toaster. I don't see any menu."

Again, thank you very much, rf, for the free entertainment you provided.

 

[WebcastMaker]

Again, thank you very much, rf, for the free entertainment you provided.

Ah-hem, this is usenet. You ask a question (or make a statement) and
the result is various opinions and arguments until it eventually turns
into a flash or no flash argument, which I usually win because I am
right, then the thread ends...

If during the life of the thread, you can pull a workable answer, then
you win. If not, then you move on.

Telling rf (or anyone else for that matter) they are a jerk because you
did not like their answer is wasting time.

I hope everyone had their sarcasm undies on while they read that...

 

[aa]

1. "you can pull a workable answer, then you win."

Unlike rf, I pulled a workable answer - see me first post to this thread.

rf in this threads, like in some others which I read, always shows his
smart(ass)ness and so far I saw no useful input of his

2. "Telling rf (or anyone else for that matter) they are a jerk because you
did not like their answer is wasting time."

In this thread I was answering op, and let him/her judge if my reply was
less useful then the others.
Apart from the op, I only replied to rf. So there is no "anyone else" here.

I did not tell rf her was a jerk - if you drew that conclusion about rf, I
have nothing to do with that, though I might agree with you.
Yes, I did not like rf's reply to the op - did you?

 

[WebcastMaker]

Unlike rf, I pulled a workable answer - see me first post to this thread.
I did not tell rf her was a jerk - if you drew that conclusion about rf, I
have nothing to do with that, though I might agree with you.
Yes, I did not like rf's reply to the op - did you?

His answer, was his answer, like it, don't like it, who cares. This is
usenet. You get what you pay for. (Well except in porn groups where
you get something extra...)

Peace-out dude....

 

[rf]

Dear rf,

I am not your dear anything, aa. When you post here you are posting to the
entire group, not an individual.

I feel sorry for you, my friend. The op's question actually reads:
"Or does anyone else has a good alternative to write a dropdown menu in

html?"

You missed the bit above that wherein the OP said
<quote>
What can I do to make the links in the menu to open in the main-frame.
</quote>

Quite obviously, to me at least, the OPs desire is to make a link actived in
one frame open the resulting page in another frame.

It is when the OP generalises by saying, basically, "this is what I have
tried, is there a better way" that your misunderstanding becomes evident.

Such a statement as the OPs generalisation does *not* mean the OP suddenly
wants an entirely different question answered, such as a drift off into
having drop down menus cross frame boundaries, a totally different topic.

Besudesm the drop down menu has already been dismissed by the time the OP's
question comes into play, that of where to display the result page.

If you cannot understand the entire question you should seriously consider
if you should reply to any part of it.

 

[rf]

Besudesm the drop down menu has already been dismissed by the time the

OP's

s/Besudesm/Besides,/

Never glance over your left shoulder at the crows that have just landed on
the veranda outside the computer room whilst using usenet. Your right hand
is likely to slip one key place to the left. Such are the trivial rules we
acquire through life

 

[Neal]

Never glance over your left shoulder at the crows that have just landed
on
the veranda outside the computer room whilst using usenet.

Sure ya do. Gotta make sure they aren't gonna peck your eyeballs out. And
if they did that, you'd have to change the text size in your browser. So
no good.

 

[Toby Inkster]

I am not your dear anything, aa. When you post here you are posting to the
entire group, not an individual.

I think he's probably actually addressing the 3 to 4 people who haven't
killfiled him.

 

[Karl Core]

I think he's probably actually addressing the 3 to 4 people who haven't
killfiled him.

Killfiled who?
;-)

-Karl

 

[aa]

Hi, rf. I really appreciate possibility to talk you you.

1. > > Dear rf,

I am not your dear anything

I thought you were dear for you are chasing my postings in other subjects (see substitute for frames)
and this is flattering. You deserve to be upgraded from dear to darling.

If you don't want to be dear - don't be it. Be cheap.

Anyway, I thought you knew that Dear is a generally accepted form in correspondence together with Yours faithfully. Both should not be understood literally. Comb the Web to get better grip on that - it is important if you indulge into written exchange.


2. When you post here you are posting to the > entire group, not an individual.

Like you are posting now?

3. > You missed the bit above that wherein the OP said

<quote>
What can I do to make the links in the menu to open in the main-frame.
</quote>

No, I did not. I was answering the second OP's question which you, being obsessed with objections, did not noticed which resulter in a knee-jerk reaction statement "That was not the op's question". A general advise for impulsive teenagers is: cool down before answering.

4. The remaining 3/4 of your message is too boring to read. leave alone answering - sorry for that.

 

[aa]

His answer, was his answer, like it, don't like it, who cares.

Same applies to your or rf's liking my answers, does it not?


This is > usenet. You get what you pay for.

As I said, I am more than happy with what I get from rf - free entertainment.
After seeing rf's answers I do not expect to learn anything from him. He has a talant to say bullshit in the most serious way - this is how comedians make people laugh - that's why I look forward to any new comments from him.
But some people whom rf enjoys to harass, and who take hin seriously, loudly pronounce they are not happy.

As you rightly said, people do not pay here for bullshit - why should they get it?


(Well except in porn groups where

you get something extra...)

Yes, from rs, like from porn groups you get a lot of extra.

Peace-out dude....

I was about to peace-out in order not to piss you off, but dear rf is chasing me in other threads (see "substitute for frames") - I'll go there and have another fun. Will you join me there?

 

[rf]

As I said, I am more than happy with what I get from rf - free

entertainment.

All part of the service

As you rightly said, people do not pay here for bullshit - why should they

get it?

Bullshit is free. It is serious advice that costs arms and legs.

I was about to peace-out in order not to piss you off, but dear rf is

chasing me in other threads (see "substitute for frames")

I do not "chase" anyone. I merely keep my eye out for any misinformation
being spread. Remember there are newbies here who will believe almost
anything.

It is better to let those newbies know that there is at least one person in
the group who disagrees with the content of a particular post. Then the
newbie can make up her mind wether to pay attention to said advice or not.

I freely admit that I am sometimes wrong when I disagree with a post. Then
what happens? Somebody comes along and jumps on *my* post. Rightly so. This
is the self-correcting nature of usenet. In the end we may end up with a
long booring thread, sometimes even a flame war. Boil it all down however
and the correct information will (hopefully) bubble to the surface.

 

[aa]

I do not "chase" anyone. I merely keep my eye out for any misinformation

being spread. Remember there are newbies here who will believe almost
anything.

you do. If you did not, then in the "drop down menu" you would not declare noncense about JavaScript not being supported by the browsers. If you were really concerned with the code compatibility, then you should have advised against SSI and server side scripts. Because the OP was obviously a newbie. Newbies usually use free webspace for these sites. Free web servers often support neither SSI nor server side scripts. At least this is much more common problem then those 200 non-JavaScript browsers


keep my eye out for any misinformation > being spread.

I noticed that. Not a single misinformation comes into being your help.

It is better to let those newbies know that there is at least one person in
the group who disagrees with the content of a particular post.

Of course you are that only person in the whole Group who knows the Truth.


Then the newbie can make up her mind wether to pay attention to said advice or not.

Earlier you accused me of sexism. Now you use "her" in place of "newbie" implying that only "he" like yourself might be a guru.

I freely admit that I am sometimes wrong when I disagree with a post.

So far you admitted this indirectly by talking obvious nonesense.
I am just for several days here and so far I saw you either harassing people, preaching them rules borrowed from some sect, or talking through your hat. Are you an owner of the Group, or its moderator or voluntary policeman?

The Group will only win if you abandone your role of a local priest and concentrate on answering people's questions.

 

[rf]

in the "drop down menu" you would not declare noncense about JavaScript

not being supported by the browsers.

Please quote the bit where I said that javascript was not supported by
browsers.

You can't, because I did not. Once again you have misread a post.

 

[aa]

Please quote the bit where I said that javascript was not supported by
browsers.
You can't, because I did not. Once again you have misread a post.
Cheers
Richard.

I just cannot understand, my friend, what you are hoping for. That your posts has been deleted?
Here you go - enjoy reading your own writing and please be advised that this is the first and the last time I take trouble to dig through your gobbledegegook to prove you what you are. Next time you will have just to believe me:
Using javascript for something as mission critical as site navigation is an
extremely bad business decision.

There are no *valid* statistics but it is estimated that somewhere between 7
and 15 % of viewers do not/can not support javascript, the reason being
immaterial. For them the site becomes unusable.

No search engine bots follow javascript script navigation. The site will
never be found.

One would be equally justified in telling the OP to turn his server off for
six weeks out of the year.

Trying to make a menu with javascript that does not fall back gracefully in
the absense of javascript (and most of them do not) is the same as turning
your server of for six weeks out of the year.

 

[Michael Winter]

[snip]

I just cannot understand, [...]

Evidently. The Web is just more than IE with a specific configuration.

The advice that Richard gave - not to rely on JavaScript for
mission-critical functionality - is precisely the same advice you'll find
at comp.lang.javascript.

[snip]

Mike

 

[aa]

The advice that Richard gave - not to rely on JavaScript for

mission-critical functionality - is precisely the same advice you'll find
at comp.lang.javascript.

I.e. not to use javascript menus whereas the whole world is using them?
Idiotic advices can be found everywhere, yet this fact does not make them
less idiotic, does it?

 

[Michael Winter]

I.e. not to use javascript menus whereas the whole world is using them?

Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people commit suicide every year.
That doesn't mean you'll catch me doing it.

Foolishness aside, you obviously don't understand what I wrote. I said
"not to rely on JavaScript". That doesn't mean never use it, it means
don't rely on it. A menu system can use Javascript to enhance it, but the
menu should be usable without any scripting.

[snip]

Mike

 

[Robert Frost-Bridges]

I.e. not to use javascript menus whereas the whole world is using
them? Idiotic advices can be found everywhere, yet this fact does not
make them less idiotic, does it?

I'm not sure what you mean here. My wife works for the uk government as
a civil servant and all their work computers have javascript turned off
by default and I should imagine that's a lot of computers.