Parent of <object> ?

[Mark Anderson]

Hi,

See http://www.shoantel.com/proj/load_problem/index.htm

After some help from the forum, I got as far as creating the above.
However, I can find a way for the <object>-embedded page to target the
enclosing page so that clicking a link in the embedded section loads its
target into to the main page. Hopefully viewing the above URL will make
the problem clearer.

Safari & Firefox are OK, IE6 fails. Sadly the latter is the main target
browser for the deployment scenario (LAN/intranet), and anyway I don't
want a browser dependent solution.

Am I up again a limitation of IE here or is my reference syntax just
wrong?

Thanks

Mark

 

[Mark Anderson]

I have to ask, is there a specific reason you are using generic
OBJECTS as opposed to specifically an IFRAME for instance?

No, other than it seemed to be a suggested way to work around needing to
include (in a non-tech sense) an image from

Bearing in mind that doing so (using an IFRAME) will most definitely
solve your problems. Since I do not believe your frame-specific code
works on OBJECTS.

The conclusion I was coming to.

If your ultimate argument is that it must validate as XHTML, the next
thing you will most assuredly hear is stop using XHTML. Especially
since when it comes to narrowing down odd behaviors across browsers,
HTML 4.01 Strict is the best medium to balance those oddities.

Or if you persist, why not XHTML Transitional (which is pointless) or
XHTML Frameset?

And before you rebut that your document *must* be XHTML, realize that
I am an advocate of using XHTML on the Web despite the naysayers.
However, in this case, the clear and logical means is to trade DTDs
for a more submissive one.

I guess I'll try XHTML Frameset or else go another route entirely to get
the image. The use of XHTML is a mandate I've not got the leverage to
alter - there may be scope to use XHTML Frameset as you mentioned. I'll
wager the requirement was insisted on by someone who wouldn't understand
the difference between HTML 4.01 vs XHTML - but can see if the latter's
not in the source. That doesn't mean I don't care - I'm trying to use
newer standards as it's forcing me to learn better coding techniques.
Small steps...

I think the summary here is what I'm trying to do can't be done using an
object (a pain to style anyway, viewport size issues) and should be done
with an iFrame. In turn this means a different XHTML DTD than 1.0 Strict
or even HTML.

Still open to any more ideas, but I guess I'll go try the FRAMESET DTD
for now.

Regards

Mark

 

[Richard Cornford]

.. . The use of XHTML is a mandate I've not got the leverage to
alter - there may be scope to use XHTML Frameset as you mentioned.
I'll wager the requirement was insisted on by someone who wouldn't
understand the difference between HTML 4.01 vs XHTML - but can see if
the latter's not in the source.

If IE is your main target browser what sort of fool mandated XHTML, when
IE does not support XHTML at all?

That doesn't mean I don't care - I'm trying to use newer standards
as it's forcing me to learn better coding techniques. Small steps...

<snip>

But there is little point in your even attempting to learn how to script
an XHTML DOM as no matter what you do IE cannot create one for you and
it makes no sense to allow browsers that can create XHTML DOMs (in
addition to HTML DOMs) to interpret your documents as if they were XHTML
because then you just double your scripting work to accommodate both
types of DOM and add the headache of ensuring that the right script runs
with the right type of DOM.

And wile it may be the case that the discipline of creating well-formed
XML while writing XHTML is a good idea in general (but a discipline that
can also be applied to HTML authoring) the act of creating mark-up of
one type and then scripting it on presupposition that it will (and can)
never be interpreted as that type of mark-up is hard to see as a "better
coding technique". Nearer formalised self-delusion.

Richard.

 

[Mark Anderson]

If IE is your main target browser what sort of fool mandated XHTML,
when IE does not support XHTML at all?

Um, the fool that mandated it? Didn't I just explain that to avoid
someone having to make a comment like yours. I know the mandate is
wrong but - real world - I can't change that but must work within/around
such a choice. I'm not clear how your comment helps me?

<snip>

But there is little point in your even attempting to learn how to
script an XHTML DOM as no matter what you do IE cannot create one for
you and it makes no sense to allow browsers that can create XHTML DOMs
(in addition to HTML DOMs) to interpret your documents as if they were
XHTML because then you just double your scripting work to accommodate
both types of DOM and add the headache of ensuring that the right
script runs with the right type of DOM.

Understood. Indeed asked here in c.l.j in case there was a simple
reference I could use that would obviate detailed (and inappropriate)
DOM work. The answer is that there isn't and, as you may guess, I this
won't be wasting time on that path.

[snip] the act of creating mark-up of one type and then scripting it
on presupposition that it will (and can) never be interpreted as that
type of mark-up is hard to see as a "better coding technique". Nearer
formalised self-delusion.

Formalised self-delusion? Not really, I figured what I appeared to be
heading towards was unlikely to work (or be the wrong approach) so asked
here of those more expert, so as to avoid the error you suggest. So here
at c.l.j it's a case of, don't ask (just guess) and be reviled by one
and all, or try to ask and learn ... and get the same result.

Oh well, thanks anyway to those who've actually helped. FWIW, I've now
taken a totally different route around this problem.

Regards

Mark