Re: Eureka! How to create or get rid of scrollbars in Netscape

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Hywel Jenkins, Jul 30, 2003.

  1. In article <Xns93C84274C95E5HombreVIIIyahoocom@63.240.76.16>,
    says...
    > (Hywel Jenkins) wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > My Liege <> wrote in message
    > > news:<Xns93C7AF641FA9HombreVIIIyahoocom@63.240.76.16>...
    > >> Put the page in a frame and then use the frame controls for the
    > >> scrollbar. I've done this in my page at
    > >> http://www.mfnbc.com/links/links.htm which required it due to
    > >> Netscape's inability to distinguish between visible and hidden
    > >> layers. IOW, it assumed the content on the page extended furthur than
    > >> it does and thus made a scrollbar who's effect was to scroll the
    > >> buttons on top off of the page. After seeing countless sites claiming
    > >> it impossible to control scrollbars in Netscape, I'm happy to have
    > >> found a way to do it. :)

    > >
    > > It's a dumb thing to do. Have you tried viewing that page at 640x480?
    > > Have you tried it at 500w x 900h?

    >
    >
    > Yep, fortunately most people surf with the window maximized.


    That's crap - how the Hell do you know? I certainly NEVER browser with
    my browser maximised. Why would I need a browser area of 1600x1200
    pixels?

    > >> PS - I'm almost as happy for having found a valid use for frames.

    > >
    > > I'm sure you are. What is the valid use that you've found? Mind you,
    > > you don't even know how to use <noframes> correctly, so perhaps you
    > > really shouldn't have bothered with frames at all.

    >
    >
    > So you're another person competing to be the most pretentious twit in
    > this group?


    Did your mummy beat you with the stupid stick when you were a kid? Is
    she still doing it?

    >
    >
    > >
    > >> Now if
    > >> only I could write code which validates. :)

    > >
    > > Well, that's not hard, is it?

    >
    >
    > If I knew how to do it, I would know that wouldn't I?


    I gave you a hint, read the specs. yourself. Then give up the frames
    thing - how many times do you need to be told?

    --
    Hywel I do not each quiche
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Jul 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Hywel Jenkins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <Xns93C84274C95E5HombreVIIIyahoocom@63.240.76.16>,
    > says...
    > > (Hywel Jenkins) wrote in
    > > news::
    > >
    > > > My Liege <> wrote in message
    > > > news:<Xns93C7AF641FA9HombreVIIIyahoocom@63.240.76.16>...
    > > >> Put the page in a frame and then use the frame controls for the
    > > >> scrollbar. I've done this in my page at
    > > >> http://www.mfnbc.com/links/links.htm which required it due to
    > > >> Netscape's inability to distinguish between visible and hidden
    > > >> layers. IOW, it assumed the content on the page extended furthur than
    > > >> it does and thus made a scrollbar who's effect was to scroll the
    > > >> buttons on top off of the page. After seeing countless sites claiming
    > > >> it impossible to control scrollbars in Netscape, I'm happy to have
    > > >> found a way to do it. :)
    > > >
    > > > It's a dumb thing to do. Have you tried viewing that page at 640x480?
    > > > Have you tried it at 500w x 900h?

    > >
    > >
    > > Yep, fortunately most people surf with the window maximized.

    >
    > That's crap - how the Hell do you know? I certainly NEVER browser with
    > my browser maximised. Why would I need a browser area of 1600x1200
    > pixels?
    >


    So you could see how fucked up his website is.
    Here it is at full screen 1400x1050 (caution to those on dialup)
    http://karlcore.com/images/framesmoron.jpg


    --
    Karl Core

    Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
     
    EightNineThree, Jul 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hywel Jenkins

    My Liege Guest

    Hywel Jenkins <> wrote in
    news::

    > In article <Xns93C84274C95E5HombreVIIIyahoocom@63.240.76.16>,
    > says...
    >> (Hywel Jenkins) wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >> > My Liege <> wrote in message
    >> > news:<Xns93C7AF641FA9HombreVIIIyahoocom@63.240.76.16>...
    >> >> Put the page in a frame and then use the frame controls for the
    >> >> scrollbar. I've done this in my page at
    >> >> http://www.mfnbc.com/links/links.htm which required it due to
    >> >> Netscape's inability to distinguish between visible and hidden
    >> >> layers. IOW, it assumed the content on the page extended furthur

    than
    >> >> it does and thus made a scrollbar who's effect was to scroll the
    >> >> buttons on top off of the page. After seeing countless sites

    claiming
    >> >> it impossible to control scrollbars in Netscape, I'm happy to have
    >> >> found a way to do it. :)
    >> >
    >> > It's a dumb thing to do. Have you tried viewing that page at

    640x480?
    >> > Have you tried it at 500w x 900h?

    >>
    >>
    >> Yep, fortunately most people surf with the window maximized.

    >
    > That's crap - how the Hell do you know?



    I know people, often better than they know themselves.


    > I certainly NEVER browser with
    > my browser maximised. Why would I need a browser area of 1600x1200
    > pixels?



    Why *wouldn't* you want to use it? Besides, I'm sure the size you
    normally use can handle my site.


    >
    >> >> PS - I'm almost as happy for having found a valid use for frames.
    >> >
    >> > I'm sure you are. What is the valid use that you've found? Mind

    you,
    >> > you don't even know how to use <noframes> correctly, so perhaps you
    >> > really shouldn't have bothered with frames at all.

    >>
    >>
    >> So you're another person competing to be the most pretentious twit in
    >> this group?

    >
    > Did your mummy beat you with the stupid stick when you were a kid? Is
    > she still doing it?



    Ooh, I like the uppity British sounding "mummy" in that. You're campaign
    for being the most pretentious twit is going nicely.


    >
    >>
    >>
    >> >
    >> >> Now if
    >> >> only I could write code which validates. :)
    >> >
    >> > Well, that's not hard, is it?

    >>
    >>
    >> If I knew how to do it, I would know that wouldn't I?

    >
    > I gave you a hint,



    No, in fact, you didn't.


    > read the specs. yourself.



    If I had asked you to tell me how to make it validate, that is a reply
    you could have given.


    > Then give up the frames
    > thing - how many times do you need to be told?



    Only once, but it has to be by my mummy. Since none of you are her, I'm
    afraid simply commanding me not to do it using the same auto-messages you
    use for any other frames discussion isn't going to work. If any of you
    can give show me how not having the frame on that page outweighs the
    benefit of having it, I'll remove it. Simple really, but as of yet
    nobodies even been able to describe how they'd know the frame was there
    sans the status bar or the source code anyway.
     
    My Liege, Jul 30, 2003
    #3
    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. My Liege
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    386
    Steve Pugh
    Jul 31, 2003
  2. rf
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    351
    My Liege
    Jul 30, 2003
  3. Ben
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    461
    My Liege
    Jul 31, 2003
  4. Steve Pugh
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    401
    Steve Pugh
    Aug 1, 2003
  5. EightNineThree
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    399
    My Liege
    Jul 31, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page