Creating popup using DOM and *no* html src

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by jonathon, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. jonathon

    jonathon Guest

    Hi all,

    I have a web app with a popup window for entering data. I don't want
    to access the web every time this window is opened, as most of the app
    is AJAX. But I can't figure out how to open a new window and build it
    with DOM rather than having to provide a src. Even a blank.html as src
    takes time to fetch.

    How can I create a popup and dynamically add DOM content without any
    html at all?
    jonathon, Aug 10, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. jonathon

    Matt Kruse Guest

    Unfortunately, you can't. When you open a window, it must have a url.

    A work-around is to use the url of "about:blank", but this causes security
    warnings on secure sites, and doesn't work in some browsers. You can use a
    javascript: pseudo-protocol to write out dummy content, but this also throws
    up security warnings in some cases. You can leave a blank url, but only some
    browsers prefer this over about:blank.

    This is, IMO, unfortunate. There should be a cross-browser way to pop up a
    new window and fill it with content without any security issues or problems.

    If anyone knows of a solution, I would _love_ to know it.
    Matt Kruse, Aug 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. jonathon

    Xandax Guest

    I am not familiar with ajax, so I don't know if this is a plausible

    But the only other idea I would be able to think of is to actually make
    the "popup" as content inside a div element which is hidden. Then on
    some event you make it visible, and using z-index style you can then
    position it above the other content.

    I don't know if this is an acceptable avenue to venture down, but it
    would be a possible way to mimic a "popup" without actually having to
    supply an url for a;
    Xandax, Aug 11, 2005
  4. jonathon

    jonathon Guest

    Actually, I found a site where you can do this.

    The 'Reader()' function opens a popup without any src and write()'s
    content as a string to the new window. But my window is just a bit
    more complex than this one, and doesn't lend itself to this approach.
    Especially since it uses iframes.
    jonathon, Aug 11, 2005
  5. jonathon

    jonathon Guest

    That's a possibility. A very good one, actually. I prefer the windows
    that seem to be part of the page rather than entirely separate anyway.
    I'll give that a shot.
    jonathon, Aug 11, 2005
  6. jonathon

    Matt Kruse Guest

    Matt Kruse, Aug 11, 2005
  7. Matt Kruse wrote :
    Well, I disagree. E.g.:

    Create a sub-window and dynamically DOM-insert an image
    It should not work on all browsers which apply correctly the
    cross-domain script security restrictions:
    also explained at
    Again, about:blank is an unique domain name...
    Well, yes, there is.

    Gérard Talbot, Aug 12, 2005
  8. Xandax wrote :
    does almost that on a load event. The What's new box moves into the
    viewport for 10 sec. or so and then moves back into a negative top value.
    Click the yellow "What's new" button if you want to see it in action again..
    Yeah, but it's as annoying as a popup actually. It's still the same too:
    unrequested content popping up, popping in the browser viewport.
    Netscape DevEdge had a article on how to bypass unrequested popups and
    Netscape was among the first to use it. It's sooooo stupid!

    Gérard Talbot, Aug 12, 2005
  9. jonathon

    Matt Kruse Guest

    This example doesn't demonstrate your (incorrect) point.
    It opens a file called "PopupWindowOnlyImage.html" when it does
    It doesn't open a "blank" window with no contents.
    Try again :)
    Matt Kruse, Aug 12, 2005
  10. jonathon

    Csaba Gabor Guest

    But having given the link, I agree with Gérard. These divs
    implementing popups are a real annoyance because they cover content and
    you cannot be sure when you click on them what they will do (I'm
    thinking specifically of news sites that pop up one of these ads that
    cover content). Even if they eventually become well implemented to the
    point of having a nice fake title bar, and are draggable, etc. they
    will still make me suspicious because I don't know their standard
    functionality. That means, that a click on a good looking fake popup
    might actually be license for a real popup to be popped up. By the
    way, I just had a thought... since popup blockers generally don't block
    popups from user initiated actions, can you (a) accumulate a bunch of
    popups just based on a single action like a click (since it's actually
    a mouse down, mouse up, mouse click)? (b) delay the actual popping
    (sort of save up your popup popping credits and spew them all out at
    the end - possibly in conjunction with window.setTimeout)?. As opposed
    to another poster, I WANT to be able to move a popup so that it doesn't
    cover the parent window so I can read the entire parent window. The
    upshot: in general, I recommend against this route.

    Csaba Gabor from Vienna
    Csaba Gabor, Aug 12, 2005
  11. jonathon

    Xandax Guest

    Csaba Gabor skrev:
    Well - as with everything, it can be abused.
    But there are situations where such popups are justified, as well as
    ordinary popups.
    The reason that some mis-use popups due to advertisments, practically
    hijacking ones browser, doesn't mean such an avenue couldn't/shouldn't
    be explored.
    It is fully depending on what the situation the OP is in whether or not
    he should use such a "pseudo-popup" as descriped in my post.

    I myself have used it in a project, when the user moves his mouse over
    a specific icon, some information about the product in question is
    shown. There it would be practically insane (in my view) to use
    "ordinary" popups, or even shift the entier layout of the page to show
    the notes somewhere "in-page".
    Likewise there are many other situations where such a popup can be
    useful, and perhaps even the optimal solution.

    So is it with all technologies and techniques, that they can be
    misused, but that shouldn't stop legitiment usage of them either.

    Xandax, Aug 12, 2005
  12. jonathon

    jonathon Guest

    This works great! It's a new iframe with an entry form. But I noticed
    some odd behavior. In Firefox on Win32, there is a little shimmer, or
    wiggle, when I move the mouse over the fields in the iframe. On
    FreeBSD, the blinking cursor never appears in the fields. You can
    edit, but you have to guess where the cursor is. I need to figure
    these out.
    This isn't a popup in the advertising sense of the word. It's a
    pseudo-dialog box that's part of the application. That's the AJAX way.
    jonathon, Aug 12, 2005
  13. jonathon

    Csaba Gabor Guest

    Such as quoting, for example. I don't have any issues with what you
    wrote, but that quote from me above is incomplete and can be
    misconstrued. My read of what the OP was asking for was a modal dialog
    box (or at least a non modal one: a popup). And the OP expressed
    succinctly the main issue: he can't pop up an empty one cross browser
    and configure it. This is a heinous state of affairs and has bugged me
    for years. But even so, for the reasons I gave in my prior post, >> in
    general << I do recommend against them. And that in general means when
    they are used to simulate another window (popup). It amounts to
    whether one prefers the altered usability or whether one prefers to not
    support certain browsers.

    At the same time, let me repeat that I don't have issues with what you
    wrote. Floating divs are extremely useful and I am using them quite a
    bit. Everywhere from tool tips (because some browsers fall down on
    providing multiline alt/title) to individual entries in family trees,
    to heirarchical menus. But I don't think of a floating div as a popup.

    Csaba Gabor
    Csaba Gabor, Aug 12, 2005
  14. jonathon

    Xandax Guest

    Csaba Gabor skrev:

    Ahh - I'm sorry.
    I misread your post. I hadn't noticed the link seperating the two
    quotes and thought your answer was to my post, because I hadn't noticed
    this seperation :eek:

    I appologize :)

    Xandax, Aug 12, 2005
  15. jonathon

    Csaba Gabor Guest

    Yes, this state of affairs has bugged me for years and it has gotten
    worse. In particular, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to
    have a modal dialog box, especially in light of the fact that more and
    more we will be moving to internet based apps. And the OP is perfectly
    reasonable in not wanting another hit to the server - that's a waste.
    It's eminently clear that if javascript is running, then it could
    pretty well do whatever it wants to on the original page so what's the
    problem with letting it create and configure another page upon user

    I've done some experimenting and find FF to be in a pretty sorry state
    on this point. The code below works fine on my (Win XP Pro) IE 6, but
    FF has some major issues (not that the javascript console says even
    Peep). If you run it with the alert line commented out, the button
    won't get placed. With the alert line there, it will be place. But
    this seems misguided at best, since the user has already clearly had to
    take action to get this far - what purpose does clicking the errant
    alert box serve?

    <button id=btn1 accesskey=c
    <u>C</u>lick me</button>
    <button accesskey=t
    <u>T</u>ry me</button>
    <script type='text/javascript'>
    function dlgShow() {
    var"javascript:'<html><head><title>" +
    "Test</title><head><body>should be a button here </body>'");

    // alert("Alert needed for FF");

    var btn = nw.document.createElement("button");
    btn.innerHTML = "Dialog <u>b</u>utton"
    btn.accessKey = "b";
    btn.onclick = function() {nw.alert("Dlg button clicked");}

    document.getElementById('btn1').onclick =
    function() {window.setTimeout('dlgShow()',10); }

    Csaba Gabor from Vienna
    Csaba Gabor, Aug 12, 2005
  16. Matt Kruse wrote :
    You're right. It does not open a pure, virgin "about:blank" document.
    Updating via dynamically DOM-inserting an "about:blank" can not be done
    because of cross-domain security restrictions... but the
    PopupWindowOnlyImage.html document could be a blank document, could be a
    blank window with no contents, not a pure "about:blank" one though.
    The current PopupWindowOnlyImage.html contains only this:
    <body onload="buildImg();"></body>

    so, I'd say it's pretty close to an empty document... It has script and
    style etc...

    Gérard Talbot, Aug 12, 2005
  17. Csaba Gabor wrote :
    This will trigger a validation error. Also, there is no need for
    "javascript:" pseudo-protocol. Unless you're creating a bookmarklet, the
    recourse to "javascript:" pseudo-protocol is always wrong, incorrect.

    Validation error here too: unescaped /

    I don't understand the purpose, reasons, justifications of setTimeout at
    each of the 3 spots called in this code.

    Gérard Talbot, Aug 12, 2005
  18. jonathon

    Matt Kruse Guest

    Ummm, that _was_ the point, you know :)
    That's not true either. You can popup an about:blank window and change it.
    Matt Kruse, Aug 12, 2005
  19. jonathon

    Csaba Gabor Guest

    Well, those two pages have NOTHING to do with the situation here.
    Those pages say don't put href="javascript:..." within a link. This
    situation has nothing to do with a link.
    The fact that we're using at all guarantees that javascript
    is running, and the reason for using the javascript: is to return html
    that is to be used as page content (as opposed to having a string url
    which causes the browser to run out to the internet. That can mean a
    potentially huge delay, which is what started this whole thread off)
    OK, this is a good point. I shouldn't have them there for the purposes
    of this discussion (and I should only have one button). But here's why
    they were there: If you put the alert back into the code, then the
    button appears as you would expect. However, on my system (where I
    embedded the whole page within a frame) using FF, I would get an
    intermittent error (I can't consistently reproduce it else I'd have
    already reported it to ) where after one
    button press, the button would no longer fire if it tried to execute
    the I tried putting in window.setTimeouts just in case
    (that why the first two were there), but that didn't work. The fix
    that actually worked was to reset the handler to its original function
    (which is why the third one was there - it's just a copy of the first
    button's event handler). Thus, the second button still failed from
    time to time.

    Here's the code again, without the distracting setTimeout
    Csaba Gabor

    <button id=btn1 accesskey=c onclick="dlgShow()">
    <u>C</u>lick me</button>
    <script type='text/javascript'>
    function dlgShow() {
    var"javascript:'<html><head><title>" +
    "Test</title><head><body>should be a button here </body>'");

    alert("Alert needed for FF"); // should not be needed

    var btn = nw.document.createElement("button");
    btn.innerHTML = "Dialog <u>b</u>utton"
    btn.accessKey = "b";
    btn.onclick = function() {nw.alert("Dlg button clicked");}
    Csaba Gabor, Aug 13, 2005
  20. Csaba Gabor wrote :
    Are you actually saying that you provided code which did not make use of
    href="javascript:..." within a link?
    Unescaped forward slashes in a script will trigger validation errors by
    the validator. That's what I meant.

    Gérard Talbot, Aug 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.