link toolbar

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Richard, Sep 28, 2006.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    I am an HTML newbie.

    I have created a table class "links" in a CSS. I include this in to my
    source files.

    In HTML I create a table of that tables class maintain a host of links to other pages on my
    site. A toolbar if you like.

    But currently I paste the same block of html (the table) onto all
    pages. What is best way to "include" such a table so that the html is
    not duplicated?

    many thanks for any pointers.
    -
     
    Richard, Sep 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard

    freemont Guest

    On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:00:02 +0200, Richard wrote:

    > What is best way to "include" such a table so that the html is not
    > duplicated?
    >
    > many thanks for any pointers.


    http://tinyurl.com/gvdd6 ;-)

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
     
    freemont, Sep 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    jojo Guest

    Richard wrote:
    ^^^^^^^ not the bast name to have... you could easily be mixed up with
    RtS (Google for "Richard Bullis" if you do not know him...). But I guess
    you are not him... or at least I hope...

    > I am an HTML newbie.
    >
    > I have created a table class "links" in a CSS. I include this in to my
    > source files.
    >

    I'm sorry? what exactly did you do? I guess something like
    table.links {}?? Perhaps you can post a URL?

    > In HTML I create a table of that tables class maintain a host of links to other pages on my
    > site. A toolbar if you like.
    >

    a table of that tables? what should that be again?? please try at least
    to describe your problem understandable...
    Erm... and BTW: do your tables show any tabular data? I guess not... so
    don't use tables then...

    > But currently I paste the same block of html (the table) onto all
    > pages. What is best way to "include" such a table so that the html is
    > not duplicated?
    >


    > many thanks for any pointers.


    any pointers? rewrite your question, make clear what you had done and
    what you want to do, post a URL, ... may be easier to answer your
    question if one can understand it...
     
    jojo, Sep 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Richard

    Richard Guest

    freemont <> writes:

    > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:00:02 +0200, Richard wrote:
    >
    >> What is best way to "include" such a table so that the html is not
    >> duplicated?
    >>
    >> many thanks for any pointers.

    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/gvdd6 ;-)


    So there is no common HTML "defined" way? My stuff is currently hosted
    on an MS Server - and that means using ASP if I want server side
    includes to work. I dont want to have .asp files because I want to
    seamlessly share the files to a Unix server shortly without having to
    rename files back to html.

    I guess I was kind of hoping that I could somehow encode my table of
    links into the CSS file which is used identically on windows asp or
    unix/linux apache servers.

    --
     
    Richard, Sep 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Richard wrote:
    > freemont <> writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:00:02 +0200, Richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> What is best way to "include" such a table so that the html is not
    >>> duplicated?
    >>>
    >>> many thanks for any pointers.

    >> http://tinyurl.com/gvdd6 ;-)

    >
    > So there is no common HTML "defined" way?


    What's in the HTML is the client's business. The only thing an HTML
    server does with a page is blindly copy it to the output stream being
    sent to the client. There isn't a means in HTML to tell the server to do
    something other than that because the server would never notice it. If
    you want such a marker to be noticed, you need something that isn't only
    an HTML server, like the ASP processor in IIS, an SSI or PHP processor, etc.

    > My stuff is currently hosted
    > on an MS Server - and that means using ASP if I want server side
    > includes to work. I dont want to have .asp files because I want to
    > seamlessly share the files to a Unix server shortly without having to
    > rename files back to html.


    Change the extension to .shtml and the SSI processor in IIS will kick in
    and do what you want without resorting to ASP. I believe .shtml works as
    well on your average Unix server, though I'm not very knowledgeable
    about that.

    Alternatively (speaking with reference to IIS 5), you can go into the
    App Mappings tab on the Configuration dialog accessed from the Home
    Directory properties for your site (or the Virtual Directory properties
    for your application) and add a mapping for the .html extension
    identical to the existing one for the .shtml extension, though that may
    not be a great idea.

    >
    > I guess I was kind of hoping that I could somehow encode my table of
    > links into the CSS file which is used identically on windows asp or
    > unix/linux apache servers.


    CSS doesn't do that.
     
    Harlan Messinger, Sep 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Richard

    freemont Guest

    On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:01:54 +0200, Richard wrote:

    > freemont <> writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:00:02 +0200, Richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> What is best way to "include" such a table so that the html is not
    >>> duplicated?
    >>>
    >>> many thanks for any pointers.

    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/gvdd6 ;-)

    >
    > So there is no common HTML "defined" way? My stuff is currently hosted
    > on an MS Server - and that means using ASP if I want server side
    > includes to work. I dont want to have .asp files because I want to
    > seamlessly share the files to a Unix server shortly without having to
    > rename files back to html.
    >
    > I guess I was kind of hoping that I could somehow encode my table of
    > links into the CSS file which is used identically on windows asp or
    > unix/linux apache servers.


    I hate saying it, but of course frames or iframes could possibly
    accomplish what you're saying... but you don't want to go there. Includes
    are the way to go. You say "I want to seamlessly share the files to a Unix
    server". Read about PHP includes. They are *not* difficult to use. Many
    decent hosts will have PHP set up for Windows and Linux.

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
     
    freemont, Sep 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Richard

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Harlan Messinger wrote:

    > Change the extension to .shtml and the SSI processor in IIS will kick in
    > and do what you want without resorting to ASP. I believe .shtml works as
    > well on your average Unix server, though I'm not very knowledgeable
    > about that.


    Indeed, it does.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Sep 29, 2006
    #7
  8. Richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Richard wrote:

    > So there is no common HTML "defined" way?


    Fortunately not. HTML defines what it defines, and it does it well
    enough. It would be wrong to stretch HTML into things it has no purpose
    trying to specifiy. There are plenty of other "standard" ways of doing
    this outside of HTML (where "standard" means "for all those people
    trying to do much the same thing, from much the same environment")

    > My stuff is currently hosted
    > on an MS Server - and that means using ASP if I want server side
    > includes to work.


    No, it doesn't. You can (and it might even be a good solution) but
    there's also an ISAPI filter shipped with IIS that can do includes
    without having to turn on the full-blown ASP behemoth.
     
    Andy Dingley, Sep 29, 2006
    #8
  9. Richard wrote:
    > So there is no common HTML "defined" way? My stuff is currently hosted
    > on an MS Server - and that means using ASP if I want server side
    > includes to work. I dont want to have .asp files because I want to
    > seamlessly share the files to a Unix server shortly without having to
    > rename files back to html.


    There actually is a LINK tag for defining links for the possible use by
    browsers generating a toolbar on their own, but unfortunately actual
    browser support is really miserable (I think Opera supports it, and
    Mozilla Seamonkey [though it's turned off by default there], but Firefox
    doesn't have it).

    --
    == Dan ==
    Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
    Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
    Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
     
    Daniel R. Tobias, Oct 1, 2006
    #9
  10. Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

    > There actually is a LINK tag for defining links for the possible use by
    > browsers generating a toolbar on their own, but unfortunately actual
    > browser support is really miserable (I think Opera supports it, and
    > Mozilla Seamonkey [though it's turned off by default there], but Firefox
    > doesn't have it).
    >

    Again, yes Firefox does have it via an extension. Firefox is supposed to
    come 'stripped' and functionality is added as needed by extensions. The
    best one for the link bar that I have found was cmSiteNavigation Toolbar
    https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1324/

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 4, 2006
    #10
  11. Richard

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
    >
    >> There actually is a LINK tag for defining links for the possible use by
    >> browsers generating a toolbar on their own
    >>

    > Again, yes Firefox does have it via an extension. Firefox is supposed to
    > come 'stripped' and functionality is added as needed by extensions.


    I would have thought that support for the full HTML 2.0 spec should fall
    into the "basic functionality" category, and not require an extension, but
    obviously the Firefox developers are happy to put forward a browser with
    only "partial HTML support".

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Oct 7, 2006
    #11
  12. Toby Inkster wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >> Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
    >>
    >>> There actually is a LINK tag for defining links for the possible use by
    >>> browsers generating a toolbar on their own
    >>>

    >> Again, yes Firefox does have it via an extension. Firefox is supposed to
    >> come 'stripped' and functionality is added as needed by extensions.

    >
    > I would have thought that support for the full HTML 2.0 spec should fall
    > into the "basic functionality" category, and not require an extension, but
    > obviously the Firefox developers are happy to put forward a browser with
    > only "partial HTML support".
    >



    MS and their 'full-blown' browser has yet to support it!

    (We are talking about the 'top', 'next', 'previous', 'chapters',...
    links right?)

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 7, 2006
    #12
  13. On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > MS and their 'full-blown' browser has yet to support it!


    MS themselves released a package of extensions for IE5 (IE5WA) which
    could be used to access the links, and various other useful bits and
    pieces. But they never updated it for IE6.

    > (We are talking about the 'top', 'next', 'previous', 'chapters',... links
    > right?)


    That's how I'm reading it, anyway.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Oct 7, 2006
    #13
  14. Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    > On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >> MS and their 'full-blown' browser has yet to support it!

    >
    > MS themselves released a package of extensions for IE5 (IE5WA) which
    > could be used to access the links, and various other useful bits and
    > pieces. But they never updated it for IE6.
    >
    >> (We are talking about the 'top', 'next', 'previous', 'chapters',... links
    >> right?)

    >
    > That's how I'm reading it, anyway.


    Same here. Just that Mozilla was my first browser that I had that
    supported them, NN up to 7.1 didn't so they may have been defined back
    in HTML 2.0 but the major graphical browsers didn't utilize them so I
    would not slam Firefox people for not natively supporting the toolbar.
    Personally I love the link navigation and incorporate them in my sites.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 7, 2006
    #14
  15. "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    >
    > Same here. Just that Mozilla was my first browser that I had that
    > supported them, NN up to 7.1 didn't so they may have been defined back
    > in HTML 2.0 but the major graphical browsers didn't utilize them so I
    > would not slam Firefox people for not natively supporting the toolbar.


    Opera has supported LINK elements for at least a couple of major
    versions now. No extension needed: it's native browser support.

    --
    Joel.
     
    Joel Shepherd, Oct 8, 2006
    #15
  16. Joel Shepherd wrote:
    > "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Same here. Just that Mozilla was my first browser that I had that
    >> supported them, NN up to 7.1 didn't so they may have been defined back
    >> in HTML 2.0 but the major graphical browsers didn't utilize them so I
    >> would not slam Firefox people for not natively supporting the toolbar.

    >
    > Opera has supported LINK elements for at least a couple of major
    > versions now. No extension needed: it's native browser support.
    >

    Same with Mozilla|SeaMonkey

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 8, 2006
    #16
  17. Richard

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Same here. Just that Mozilla was my first browser that I had that
    > supported them,


    Whether or not you had them or not, iCab, Lynx, Links, Mosaic 3, UdiWWW
    all supported the LINK element before Mozilla did. Also, Opera 5 for Mac
    supported LINK, though the feature didn't get ported to other platforms
    until version 7.

    Mozilla (not Firefox) 0.9x supported LINK, but they actually *removed* it
    for Mozilla 1.0, re-instating it for 1.1.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Oct 9, 2006
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kevin Spencer

    Re: Link Link Link DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!

    Kevin Spencer, May 17, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    891
    Kevin Spencer
    May 17, 2005
  2. Graham Thomson
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    488
    Eki Y. Baskoro
    Dec 18, 2003
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    6,095
    Andrew T.
    Jul 10, 2006
  4. Dan M
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    440
  5. pcouas
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    267
    pcouas
    Feb 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page