Is it possible for a hyperlink to call TWO URLs?

[Leonard Blaisdell]

To assume this group is for some reason the
exclusive domain of people who have a degree in web design is a little...
what's a polite word for presumptuous.

Apologies if I offend, but you haven't spoken precisely nor clearly
given a 'real world' example. Your frustration is showing. There is a
fairly recent and deeply quotable Usenet expression[1]. I'm paraphrasing
that 'we are not your personal 24 hour help-desk, and if your problem is
occasionally solved, it is purely incidental to the discussion.'
All inhabitants that have a degree in web design, raise your hands. Your
degree is bogus.

[1] I know the author isn't anonymous. I just can't remember who said it.

leo

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

To the uninitiated, a file ending .html whether or not it contains
JavaScript, is an HTML file. I wanted a solution that worked in HTML. It's
always worth remembering there are people in the world who don't know as
much about computers as you do. To assume this group is for some reason the
exclusive domain of people who have a degree in web design is a little...
what's a polite word for presumptuous.

Well for a point of information if you use a java applet or flash object
your document could also have an HTML file extension...does not make it
an HTML solution.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Chris Ianson quothed:

Genius! I love your style. While most other people spent days nitpicking
at me because I don't know as much as them (ooooh so impressive), you just
got down and gave me a simple solution in a few lines of JS. Kudos to you
my friend!
'Welcome.

Does it work in FF, Opera, or Safari do you happen to know?

FF: yes; Opera: no; Safari: ?

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Chris Ianson quothed:

PS: Is there a way this can work *across* htm files?

Let's say 'Go to End' actually says 'Go to End of Image 2', and that calls a
name reference in a 2nd htm file called A2image.htm with a different
panorama inside.

When clicked it loads image2.htm into the same iframe, replacing image1.htm.

Uh, yes, I think so. But the j/s code is in image1.htm so as it is,
that would necessitate repeating almost the same code for each
imageN.htm (-or making some changes and a .js file. Probably the better
way to do it would be to move the code to the "master.htm" page, but I'm
not sure if that is even possible. ((Um, um, actually, it should be. I
think.)) )

Also bear in mind that the _right_ (-meaning optimal) way to do it is
all in one page as Els was suggesting. It could be tricky but at least
you would lose the reliance on j/s.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

I will never see 7, on my
computer.

I felt that way, too, but then I discovered I could run it in stand alone
mode so it wouldn't infect my computer, here's how:
<http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2005/12/28/434132.aspx>

 

[Els]

Sorry, it's incredibly hard to explain what I want to do, because it's a new
web site project

"Web site" as in out on the world wide web, targeted at the masses?
You do know that there are loads of people who surf on 800x600 screens
and plenty that have JavaScript turned off? And that there are people
not having a Windows computer?

that is copyright and has to remain confidential
intellectual property.

*Luigi alert*

I have uploaded an *example* of the *sort of thing*
I need to achieve, but that example is nothing to do with the finished idea.

All I wanted was for the main page not to scroll when jumping within the
iframe. That's all.

And I did not do that at all. What I did was define exactly the level
the page should scroll to upon clicking the links. If the visitor
would have a 2 meter high monitor, and have the image right in the
bottom when clicking one of the links, it would jump up 2 meter to sit
in the top left corner.

What you have done is propose 2 ways of it not scrolling quite so much. 1
way it scrolls a little way down but not as far.

That only is so because you didn't try the 2 meter high monitor.

The other way, it stays at
the top of the image components you inserted.

Always. It's not what you want I just discovered.

So, ideally 'A' the page would remain in the same position, as for reasons
again I won't go into, it will be lined up nicely when they arrive at the
page. And 'B' that position will show the text/map at the top of the
*iframe* (not the window).

Still, A and B can't be had at the same time.
See, if your visitor has scrolled the "iframe" so high that the link
itself is in the top right corner, (and therefore half the image and
anything above it is off-screen), you would have to choose between:
a) leave the page in the same position
b) bring back the top half of the image and whatever is above it back
into the window (i.e. jumping vertically)
Cannot have both at the same time. Impossible.

I shouldn't expect much as I'm not paying you!

I'm not stopping you from starting to ;-)

I'm interested in knowing how you achieved it. I don't claim to be a
computer or web page programmer, so what method is your code employing?

Nothing that can't be seen right there in the code...

I've had a look at it and I can't fathom out how you've got the components
to stay in place at the top.

I hope I'm not spoiling your Sunday, but.. if after reading my code
you can't see how I did it, you don't know enough HTML or CSS to do
this project, and you need to hire someone else.

So I couldn't get a 3D border (light top & left border, dark bottom &
right)?

Let me repeat: "Just change the properties".
Really, you need to learn HTML and CSS before you can do anything with
this project.

The other Q - if you have a mo - is: Is there an easy way to 'copy & paste'
my current iframe contents into your version of the panorama box? The
problem is, my current image has not just 2 layout cells on it saying
'start' and 'end', but about 15 layout cells, and 30 hotspot hyperlinks.

No, there is no easy way. As I've explained before - I split each of
your links into two parts:
a) the link (the <a href="">)
b) the anchor (the <a id="" name="">)

It's a precise and carefully constructed combination of relative and
absolute positioned links and anchors, and it certainly won't work
just copy pasting what you already have.

Maybe Neredbojias solution works with that, I don't know - JavaScript
is one of many languages I don't speak.

Any easy way to 'dump' that inside your solution, straight out of my iframe?

Nope.

Let me tell you what I think would be close to what you want to
achieve - like yours, just an example:

Imagine an iframe within a page - browser window high enough to show
the entire iframe. In the iframe, a worldmap that doesn't fit inside
the frame, and with scrollbars you can move around it both vertically
and horizontally. Cities on the world map are red dots, and linked.
Scrolling to Seattle - clicking on Seattle makes the map jump to
Toronto, clicking on Toronto makes the map jump to Rio de Janeiro,
clicking Rio jumps to Amsterdam. All this time, the iframe and the
page stay put, it's just the worldmap that jumps around both
vertically and horizontally.

If this is the scenario you're after - my solution will *not* work for
you, even after you fully understand what I did. You will need
JavaScript, and I can't help you with that. (my method only works for
*horizontal* 'iframe' scrolling while remaining one certain
pre-determined vertical position for the outer page)

Sorry, what can I say, I'm a trouble-maker.

It's not the trouble that reminds me of Luigi.

Hopefully one day you'll find my site when it takes over the world, and
realise what 'that guy' was trying to achieve! I'll try to remember to give
you the URL when it launches.

It's sentences like that that remind me of Luigi <g>

 

[Chris Ianson]

Apologies if I offend, but you haven't spoken precisely nor clearly
given a 'real world' example. Your frustration is showing. There is a

No offence taken. I have clarified that the project is copyright at the
moment, so I gave as much info as I possibly could. Doing my best here!! I
hope to show a real world example soon.

fairly recent and deeply quotable Usenet expression[1]. I'm paraphrasing
that 'we are not your personal 24 hour help-desk,

Els and Neredbojias and Evertjan and Toby Inkster and... would beg to
differ. I asked a question, most of you nitpicked over my wrong use of some
words shock horror (I would have expected you guys to know terminology from
the most common HTML editor) whilst these guys in my few threads at this
group just got on with it and gave me working solutions.

Maybe I should add some sort of 'no discussion please, only those able to
help' tag to my subject lines. Then we can filter out all the 'I'm better
than you' messages from people who think they're oh so cool because they
know a lot about computer code.

 

[Chris Ianson]

Well for a point of information if you use a java applet or flash object
your document could also have an HTML file extension...does not make it an
HTML solution.

Confusing to a newbie, and correct me if you were wrong but you were a
newbie like me once too. Thanks for the information.

 

[Els]

Maybe I should add some sort of 'no discussion please, only those able to
help' tag to my subject lines.

Better swallow that sentence again!

Then we can filter out all the 'I'm better
than you' messages from people who think they're oh so cool because they
know a lot about computer code.

Chris, if you would use an addition like that to your subject line,
you'd filter out *everyone*. Including myself. The most you could get
after that, is a thread full of discussion about helpdesks and you'd
hear versions of "the helpdesk is just down the hall, second on your
right - have your creditcard ready".

Leonard is entirely correct in what he said. The fact that some of us
spent so much time to try and do what you are after is more to do with
liking a challenge than with being a helpdesk. We are *not* a
helpdesk. (not even a 9 to 5 one).

 

[Toby Inkster]

fairly recent and deeply quotable Usenet expression[1]. I'm paraphrasing
that 'we are not your personal 24 hour help-desk,

Els and Neredbojias and Evertjan and Toby Inkster and... would beg to
differ.

No -- I'd agree with Leonard.

I think most of the people in this group are here to discuss HTML and
related subjects, and in doing so, perhaps learn something new, from the
newsgroup's collective wisdom.

A lot of questions are raised in the group, such as your question that
started this thread, and often discussion will arise from those questions.
If that discussion answers the original question, or the original poster
finds it to be beneficial in some other way, then that's great --
seriously, it is.

But if the original poster's question isn't answered, which is often
the case, then you've got to realise we're not been payed to answer
questions; we're not contractually obliged to.

Of course, most of the people here *are* helpful people, and are
especially inclined to help out if either the question itself is
interesting to them, or the poster seems to be polite/grateful for
any assistance that can be given. (And for that last reason, I'd
certainly recommend *against* adding "no discussion please, only
those able to help" to your subject lines!)

If you really need a question answering then there are consultants
out there who will be happy to help, but as Els said, make sure
you've got your credit card number handy. There are also forums like
Experts-Exchange.com which provide help on a barter system. There
again, people would be more obliged to provide help, rather than
just provide discussion.

I asked a question, most of you nitpicked over my wrong use of some
words shock horror (I would have expected you guys to know terminology
from the most common HTML editor)

McDonalds is the most common restaurant in the world, but you shouldn't
expect *everyone* to be intimately familiar with their menus and pricing.
Indeed, you should expect the gourmets of the world to be even *less*
familiar with McDonalds food than the general public.

I've used Dreamweaver once, but that was several years ago so my memory
of it is hazy. (I have trouble enough remembering last week!) I expect
the terminology to have changed since then (~ version 3.0) anyway.

Here we use a variety of different tools for editing HTML/CSS/PHP/etc, so
we try to avoid product-specific terminology, and just use the terms
as defined in the relevent specifications. It avoids a lot of confusion.

(e.g. the word "layer" in Dreamweaver and in Netscape 4.x mean two
entirely different things. So, it seems, does the word "bookmark".)

 

[Toby Inkster]

Els' version works fine in my Win2K IE6. (I will never see 7, on my
computer.)

VMWare.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I felt that way, too, but then I discovered I could run it in stand alone
mode so it wouldn't infect my computer, here's how:
<http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2005/12/28/434132.aspx>

You missed the significant part of BTS's quote:
"Els' version works fine in my Win2K IE6."

It is the Win2K that is the limiting factor. I as with many many many
others will not see IE7 without a forced OS and /or hardware upgrade....

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Does that work on Win2K ? (Granted, I just scanned the page.)

You missed the significant part of BTS's quote:
"Els' version works fine in my Win2K IE6."

It is the Win2K that is the limiting factor. I as with many many many
others will not see IE7 without a forced OS and /or hardware
upgrade....

Precisely. I do not intend to ever own Vista. Or XP for that matter. :-0
When Win2K stops doing what I need, I'll either be too old to use this
computer, or will be using Linux full-time instead of part-time.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

"Web site" as in out on the world wide web, targeted at the masses?
You do know that there are loads of people who surf on 800x600 screens
and plenty that have JavaScript turned off? And that there are people
not having a Windows computer?


*Luigi alert*

I find it amazing the folks that endeavor into a project with no
foundation in the subject, (that's no the error thought) but when faced
with technical difficulties what others to supply them with solutions
without having to bother with taking the effort to study or research in
that field. It takes the cake that if someone was able to 'find the
solution' that they would want to copyright it!


Now to Chris, it is Chris in this thread, right? ;-) It is admirable in
computers (in any field as well) to push the envelope. I am an age old
hacker and love the thrill of discovering innovative solutions that
break-out of the confines of the "tools at hand". But when there are
already technologies at hand that can not only do the job easier but
better, well the appeal is diminished. From what I can gather from this
muddled exchange is you're trying to create some media effect with a
dynamic panorama. Not to sound like a broken record but Flash is one
technologies perfectly suited to this and would do it more reliably and
better. You could have it the panorama scroll with mere mouse-overs on
hot zones, God forbid play sounds at certain positions along the way,
simulate a 360 degree scroll...whatever.


No one owes you the answer, but we can advise for the knowledge and
experience that can assist you, but only if you are receptive to the
information. Don't believe what you are hearing? Fine. Good luck on your
endeavors.

<snippity snip>

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Confusing to a newbie, and correct me if you were wrong but you were a
newbie like me once too. Thanks for the information.

Ah yes, however I was and still am open to learning. The man that has
nothing left to learn is a man that is incapable of of learning anything.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Precisely. I do not intend to ever own Vista. Or XP for that matter. :-0
When Win2K stops doing what I need, I'll either be too old to use this
computer, or will be using Linux full-time instead of part-time.

Here, here! Damn I hate that Fisher-Price interface! And I'd like to
tell Bill where he can put all those Wizards!

 

[Chris Ianson]

Now to Chris, it is Chris in this thread, right? ;-) It is admirable in
computers (in any field as well) to push the envelope. I am an age old
hacker and love the thrill of discovering innovative solutions that
break-out of the confines of the "tools at hand". But when there are
already technologies at hand that can not only do the job easier but
better, well the appeal is diminished. From what I can gather from this
muddled exchange is you're trying to create some media effect with a
dynamic panorama. Not to sound like a broken record but Flash is one
technologies perfectly suited to this and would do it more reliably and
better. You could have it the panorama scroll with mere mouse-overs on hot
zones, God forbid play sounds at certain positions along the way, simulate
a 360 degree scroll...whatever.

I hear you, but in our market research almost a quarter of people couldn't
run something with flash, or would not bother to install or activate it,
thus instantly losing almost a quarter of our visitors. An interface in an
iframe is, AFAIK, far more compatible. Our site is also targeted at those
who do not often use the computer, so should work 'out of the box' on XP and
Mac. AFAIK, iframes do.

Appreciate your input.

 

[Els]

I hear you, but in our market research almost a quarter of people couldn't
run something with flash, or would not bother to install or activate it,
thus instantly losing almost a quarter of our visitors. An interface in an
iframe is, AFAIK, far more compatible. Our site is also targeted at those
who do not often use the computer, so should work 'out of the box' on XP and
Mac. AFAIK, iframes do.

People who "not often use the computer" aren't as likely to be using
XP as people who do use it often. Or at least that's my thought - if I
wouldn't be using my computer much, why would I bother to upgrade the
old Win98 I've grown accustomed to? Worse on a Mac - it's far more
expensive to upgrade from an old Mac to a new OSX than from Win98 to
XP. And why would I be using a large monitor?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

People who "not often use the computer" aren't as likely to be using
XP as people who do use it often. Or at least that's my thought - if I
wouldn't be using my computer much, why would I bother to upgrade the
old Win98 I've grown accustomed to? Worse on a Mac - it's far more
expensive to upgrade from an old Mac to a new OSX than from Win98 to
XP. And why would I be using a large monitor?

Also most folk have Flash and Acrobat plug-ins pre-installed on their
browser...Java use to be as well before the MS vs Sun spat a while back,
but many still have Java(TM)2 plug-in as well.

 

[Jose]

Also most folk have Flash and Acrobat plug-ins pre-installed...

The poster stated that he had 25% intellegent users (that is, 25% do not
use flash <asbestos on!>. That makes flash not suitable in his target
market.

Jose