52  5463 
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:33:07 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: What's wrong with _your_ reaction is that you keep babbling and
disorienting people - even defending and propagating disinformation
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".
This has been a staple of the ciw groups from way back when. As one who
has been on these groups for mumble-something years, I can say with
assurance that the bogosity factor will *never* go away.
The frustration you're voicing arises from the disagreeable fact that, far
too often, the bogus "solutions" have the *appearance* of "working". Tie
that with the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people on the web
are (b) not in the least bit interested in the why of things yet (b) all
too eager from sociological imperatives to convey the *impression* of
being tech-savvy, and you have a *systemic* bias towards, and indeed
preference for, the Rube Goldbergian.
Adding a line to a .htaccess file is just too *simple*. No no no.
Writing a HTML page with frames and meta refreshes - now there's a sense
of accomplishment!
But the real tragedy is that, for the most part, we are all deceived. The
web is not in the least bit high tech. It is an astonishing monument to
backyard garage mechanic fiddlefutzing and kludgery, where no idea is ever
bad enough not to (a) be implemented, and (b) become popular.
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:37:12 +0100, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy .com>
wrote: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:23:12 GMT, Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your. initiative>
wrote:
[...]
People here have got a real downer on using frames to achieve the effect, but
they've not actually said why.
Have you ever tried to bookmark a specific frame state, as produced by
the "framed" simple minded www author?
Where you able to use that bookmark to get back to exactly what you
where looking at in the first place?
That's not a reason for not doing it, it's something to be aware of. We're
talking about redirection here not the general failings of frames.
I guess using target " _top" in the links of his destination page will
eliminate the frameset from future navigation.
Jim
[...]
...but hey, I'm willing to listen, and to be told a
better client-side method.
There is none.
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:00:44 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfor dalumni.org> wrote: Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your. initiative> wrote: People here have got a real downer on using frames to achieve the effect, but
they've not actually said why.
See http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/fra...frame-problems
I reiterate what I said to Jan :-
We're talking about redirection here not the general failings of frames.
The redirecting frameset contains only one frame, the source for which is the
destination page. The default target of the destination page is "_top".
Jim
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:23:12 +0000, Jim Lawton wrote: Unfortunately that doesn't cover his requirement that the first page
should not display.
That is a correct description of his best understanding of what he
*thought* he needed.
Zero length delays are frowned on.
Any idea why?
I confirm I *have* read the FAQ,
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/publish.html
which doesn't suggest any other client-side solution.
Because this is not a "client-side" problem.
People here have got a real downer on using frames to achieve the effect,
Why are frames necessary to "achieve the effect"? (Did you find the word
"frame" in section 4.7 of the document you cited?)
Of course, it works fine, and millions of people use it unknowingly every
day,
The low tech kludgery of the web, in a nutshell.
but hey, I'm willing to listen, and to be told a better client-side method.
Perhaps you should try explaining why this is a "client-side" issue at all.
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:27:58 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com. invalid> wrote: On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:33:07 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
What's wrong with _your_ reaction is that you keep babbling and
disorienting people - even defending and propagating disinformation
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".
This has been a staple of the ciw groups from way back when. As one who
has been on these groups for mumble-something years, I can say with
assurance that the bogosity factor will *never* go away.
The frustration you're voicing arises from the disagreeable fact that, far
too often, the bogus "solutions" have the *appearance* of "working".
The "appearance of working"? - every time you write a web page which relies on
browser sniffing or css hacks, you are giving the "appearance of working" .
If it "appears to be working" to the end-user and gives an acceptable level of
service, then it *is* working.
Tie that with the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people on the web
are (b) not in the least bit interested in the why of things
End users shouldn't have to be. Professionals should do things to the best of
their ability, but in a world of disparate technologies randomly implemented
specialists are rare.
yet (b) all
too eager from sociological imperatives to convey the *impression* of
being tech-savvy, and you have a *systemic* bias towards, and indeed
preference for, the Rube Goldbergian.
Adding a line to a .htaccess file is just too *simple*. No no no.
Writing a HTML page with frames and meta refreshes - now there's a sense
of accomplishment!
That is a fantasy - I can assure you that the majority of people tinkering about
on the WWW have no awareness of server-side technology, and the hosting services
they use are entirely passive, and their chances of getting say NTL to do
anything for them at an individual level approximate to nil. Further, they
aren't expecting a thousand hits an hour but a few per day, if that.
To say as Alan does, of people who publish this way "Then he's not really
publishing pages on the WWW" is like saying that because I got into the garden
through the window and nor through the door I'm not in the garden.
And people who have no access to their server *have to* use client side
solutions.
The OP's question is entirely clear to anyone not blinded by their own technical
perceptions, and John Stockton stated it quite clearly. The guy asked for a *web
page* that is *not displayed* and which would *redirect* without user action.
All server-side solutions, no matter how perfect, simple and desirable, don't
answer that question.
All client-side solutions, however manky, second-rate and undesirable do.
But the real tragedy is that, for the most part, we are all deceived. The
web is not in the least bit high tech. It is an astonishing monument to
backyard garage mechanic fiddlefutzing and kludgery, where no idea is ever
bad enough not to (a) be implemented, and (b) become popular.
In this you are entirely correct. Until the advent of the PC we seemed to be
progressing towards a sane unix-based engineering model of computing. Then a few
guys came out of a garage who knew nothing about standards or anything else
except what the world wanted, and turned the everything on its head.
Jim
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:48:56 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com. invalid> wrote:
snip
Perhaps you should try explaining why this is a "client-side" issue at all.
See my response to your other post.
Jim
Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your. initiative> wrote: On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:27:58 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com. invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:33:07 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
What's wrong with _your_ reaction is that you keep babbling and
disorienting people - even defending and propagating disinformation
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".
This has been a staple of the ciw groups from way back when. As one who
has been on these groups for mumble-something years, I can say with
assurance that the bogosity factor will *never* go away.
The frustration you're voicing arises from the disagreeable fact that, far
too often, the bogus "solutions" have the *appearance* of "working".
The "appearance of working"? - every time you write a web page which relies on
browser sniffing or css hacks, you are giving the "appearance of working" .
If it "appears to be working" to the end-user and gives an acceptable level of
service, then it *is* working.
What Arjun means--I'm pretty certain, since I would have said the same
thing--is that it "appears" to the site's designer to work because it
*happens* to work in *his* browser with *his* configuration under
*his* operating system on *his* computer at *his* selected resolution
and window size. It doesn't occur to him that his site won't work that
way for everyone else. It's as if you manufactured and sold a car
after having assured yourself that your design runs fine on the street
outside your house on sunny days, without ever having checked it on
hills, on highways, in the rain, etc.
Tie that with the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people on the web
are (b) not in the least bit interested in the why of things
End users shouldn't have to be. Professionals should do things to the best of
their ability, but in a world of disparate technologies randomly implemented
specialists are rare.
But that's the point. There *are* methods that are better suited to
accommodating the range of technologies that exist, and there are
methods that are worse.
yet (b) all
too eager from sociological imperatives to convey the *impression* of
being tech-savvy, and you have a *systemic* bias towards, and indeed
preference for, the Rube Goldbergian.
Adding a line to a .htaccess file is just too *simple*. No no no.
Writing a HTML page with frames and meta refreshes - now there's a sense
of accomplishment!
That is a fantasy - I can assure you that the majority of people tinkering about
on the WWW have no awareness of server-side technology,
So when they ask a question to which that's the best answer, the
correct course is to leave them in the dark?
[snipping comments about typical site owners' access to server
functions]
The OP's question is entirely clear to anyone not blinded by their own technical
perceptions, and John Stockton stated it quite clearly. The guy asked for a *web
page* that is *not displayed* and which would *redirect* without user action.
What if someone in a newbie drivers' group asked, "How do you use the
clutch to steer a car?" Would you give him some kludge involving the
clutch that happens to make some models of car turn left or right, or
would you tell him about the steering wheel? You're not helping
someone when his question itself indicates that he's approaching the
problem the wrong way. Actually, people who ask questions would often
be better off asking questions that make the fewest possible
assumptions about the answer.
When I was a kid, my mother told me that when I went to the doctor
with a complaint, I shouldn't start off with "I have the flu" or "I've
got food poisoning." Instead, I should tell him what I can
*observe*--I've got a temperature, I'm exhausted, I'm naseous--and let
*him* figure out what's going on. Otherwise, a less-than-alert doctor
might let my complaint, as stated, be his starting point and go down
the wrong path.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:09:31 +0000, Jim Lawton wrote: On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:27:58 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com. invalid> wrote:On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:33:07 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
The "appearance of working"? - every time you write a web page which relies on
browser sniffing or css hacks, you are giving the "appearance of working" .
Correct. There are more browsers and browsing situations than are dreamt
of in your philosophy.
If it "appears to be working" to the end-user and gives an acceptable
level of service, then it *is* working.
No. It is appearing to work, for that end-user. There is a difference
between working by accident and working by design. The ignorant have no
notion of what level of service could be acceptable.
Tie that with the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people on
the web are (b) not in the least bit interested in the why of things
End users shouldn't have to be.
Truly end users shouldn't, because they are merely consumers of web pages.
But putting up a web page - or, for that matter, dealing with how URIs
and HTTP *work* - necessarily involves you with the relevant technology.
Professionals should do things to the best of their ability,
That's the point. Perfeshnals have become respectable on the web.
Adding a line to a .htaccess file is just too *simple*. No no no.
Writing a HTML page with frames and meta refreshes - now there's a
sense of accomplishment!
That is a fantasy - I can assure you that the majority of people
tinkering about on the WWW have no awareness of server-side technology,
And this is not a problem?
and the hosting services they use are entirely passive, and their
chances of getting say NTL to do anything for them at an individual
level approximate to nil.
This is known without even trying?
And people who have no access to their server *have to* use client
side solutions.
No, they need merely find an appropriate server. There are plenty.
The guy asked for a *web page* that is *not displayed* and which
would *redirect* without user action.
In point of fact, there is no such thing. Consider this page:
<html>
<head><title> </title></head>
<body></body>
</html>
Is it *displayed* (to copy your emphasis) when it is served with HTTP 200?
That's why there is no such thing as a "client-side" solution.
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: Gus Richter <gu********@net scape.net> wrote:
Since all the Regulars know the FAQ by heart, what is so wrong in
directing the OP to:
http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/all.html#redirect
Nothing particular, if you are willing to do so, despite the flow of
wrong answers that people will consume more eagerly since they look
simpler. Most of the regulars have become kind of frustrated with that.
So, you being one of the frustrated regulars, you thereby condone and
excuse the behavior of holding back information, providing only a
cryptic answer which clearly is designed to toy with the OP and all
others interested and then pounce hard on anyone daring to voice an
opinion. Sad.
After all, if people who ask questions here wanted _correct_ answers
and wanted them _fast_, they would have checked the FAQ before asking.
You believe that there are people seeking _incorrect_ answers?
I submitted what I believe to be a correct way to answer, which at the
very least could have been: "Check the FAQ, it is answered there". If
that is too much trouble for any of the regulars, then I suggest that it
may be time for a vacation or to drop the facade of pretending to help.
What's wrong with _your_ reaction is that you keep babbling and
disorienting people - even defending and propagating disinformation
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".
Oh dear, I babble with only two postings and you expound?
What you're not taking into account is that there are people out there
that are not at your lofty level, are striving to get there, or have no
intension of getting there. Some people simply wish to put up a simple
site with some added feature and not a large complex commercial one.
Some people may wish to stay with a client-side solution for whatever
reason and therefore it is unnecessary to try to shove server-side down
their throats. What is a drawback to your eyes may not be as important
to someone else. It is certainly important to point out those drawbacks
and recommendations , but in the end it is their choice and therefore my,
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".
--
Gus
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:37:34 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com. invalid> wrote:
snip
That's why there is no such thing as a "client-side" solution.
I'm sorry, you are like a man faced with a tiger,who refuses a shot gun to ward
it off on the grounds that the correct solution is to use a Winchester, which
you currently don't have.
You (I take it) are a professional, you must often have to do things in a less
than perfect way, to achieve the ends of your clients in impossible timescales,
or for their reasons not yours. (If not we aren't talking real world here).
So let me rephrase this question for you, as a problem in logic, instead of
wanabee ...
1) You have no access to your servers, except to FTP web pages.
2) You need to redirect requests from a.htm to b.htm, without the user being
aware that it happened.
3) Your solution needs to work in late versions of IE and Gecko based browsers -
let's say Firefox
3) How would you do it?
If your answer above is true, you can't do anything, and the the tiger gets you.
What do you actually do? Without theorising, what is your best practical
solution?
Jim This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Andrew |
last post by:
I am setting up a web page to collect some data via a questionnaire.
The questionnaire part is working fine, but I need some help with one
part. I have two different versions of the questionnaire (basically
just different orders of questions) and would like the users to be
redirected to one of the two versions. The idea I had was to have a
redirection page that simply had a web page counter on it (like so many
pages have now days) and...
|
by: JoanneC |
last post by:
How can I incorporate the following javascript code in an ASP.NET
application (using VB.NET)
Like the following
If textbox1.text = "" then
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" runat="server">
setTimeout("go_now()",5000);
function go_now () { window.location.href =
"http://testweb.cs.ul.ie/PGrad/JoanneC/Input_Methods.aspx"; }
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
| | |
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| |
