Hi folks
I want to enhance my website to distinguish "external" hyperlinks from
"internal" ones.
With that aim, I've written the following two small files for testing
purposes:
C:\styles.css:
.extlink {
background: url( http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat
right middle;
padding-right: 12px; }
C:\test.htm:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<LINK REL=StyleSheet HREF="styles.css" TYPE="text/css">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<A class=extlink href=zzz>WHATEVER</A>
</BODY>
</HTML>
I want to open C:\test.htm directly from my hard disk, to see how the
background image looks, before I change my actual website.
Problems:
(1) IE6 only displays the background image if I remove the DOCTYPE
declaration. If I retain that declaration, it does not display that
image, even though it still obeys the other aspects of the 'extlink'
style. Adding or removing an IE6 "mark of the web" (MOTW) has no affect
on this, one way or the other.
(2) FireFox 1.5 does not display the image at all - with or without the
DOCTYPE declaration.
Questions:
(1) Why does the DOCTYPE stop IE6 displaying the image?
(2) Why doesn't FF display the image at all?
(3) What should I do to resolve this, to enable local testing of the
files on my hard disk?
I realize that it will probably all work fine, when I copy all of the
relevant files to my web host. But I want to know why it *doesn't* work
fine when I run them locally on my PC. Generally I like to test my
changes locally, before I copy them to my web host.
TIA,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com 24  3718 
TC wrote:
.extlink {
background: url(http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat
right middle;
Make that right center.
padding-right: 12px; }
<A class=extlink href=zzz>WHATEVER</A>
Make that <a class="extlink" href="zzz">WHATEVER</a>
I want to open C:\test.htm directly from my hard disk, to see how the
background image looks, before I change my actual website.
Problems:
(1) IE6 only displays the background image if I remove the DOCTYPE
declaration. If I retain that declaration, it does not display that
image, even though it still obeys the other aspects of the 'extlink'
style.
Usually that means that you've done something wrong in the code, which
IE will "forgive" if you have it in Quirksmode, since in Quirksmode it
doesn't "have to" follow the W3C guidelines.
Add the doctype, then *validate your code*, and fix the errors. If
then still IE doesn't show your background, come asking and show an
online example of what it is that's not working.
Adding or removing an IE6 "mark of the web" (MOTW) has no affect
on this, one way or the other.
What *is* a mark of the web?
(2) FireFox 1.5 does not display the image at all - with or without the
DOCTYPE declaration.
Firefox always wants to follow the W3C recommendations ;-)
Questions:
(1) Why does the DOCTYPE stop IE6 displaying the image?
Probably cause your code wasn't good.
(2) Why doesn't FF display the image at all?
See above.
(3) What should I do to resolve this, to enable local testing of the
files on my hard disk?
Make your code good.
I realize that it will probably all work fine, when I copy all of the
relevant files to my web host. But I want to know why it *doesn't* work
fine when I run them locally on my PC. Generally I like to test my
changes locally, before I copy them to my web host.
Good thinking.
However, if you use a file locally and have the href as
file:///C:/blabla, then it will work locally, but not after uploading.
To prevent mishaps like that, you could think of installing a
webserver locally as well. Apache is free :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
TC wrote:
TC wrote:
> .extlink {
background: url(http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat
PS. ATSPACE disallows hotlinking to images on their server from outside
their server. So if you click the link above, it fails with an error.
You're sure? I did click it, and saw a nice little external link
image. I think you mean that it will fail if there is a non-atspace
referer, which would be the case when calling it from a page, combined
with a browser that doesn't block the referer.
But I've repeated the whole process using the following (freely
linkable) image: http://i.microsoft.com/h/en-us/i/msnlogo.gif The
result was identical.
:-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Els wrote:
TC wrote:
Problems:
(1) IE6 only displays the background image if I remove the DOCTYPE
declaration. If I retain that declaration, it does not display that
image, even though it still obeys the other aspects of the 'extlink'
style.
Usually that means that you've done something wrong in the code, which
IE will "forgive" if you have it in Quirksmode, since in Quirksmode it
doesn't "have to" follow the W3C guidelines.
Add the doctype, then *validate your code*, and fix the errors. If
then still IE doesn't show your background, come asking and show an
online example of what it is that's not working.
Yes, good idea to validate first. I'll try that now. But I suspect that
there is no point putting an example online - it will almost certainly
*work* online :-)
Adding or removing an IE6 "mark of the web" (MOTW) has no affect
on this, one way or the other.
What *is* a mark of the web?
IE executes local files (C:/blah.test) under the security restrictions
of the Local zone. In days gone by, the Local zone had *less*
restrictions than the Internet zone. So local files were *more capable*
than remote ones. Now days, the Local zone has *more* restrictions than
the Internet zone, so local files are (by default) *less* capable than
remote ones. This gves problems if you want to test your files locally
- they'll have *less* capablity than when you put them on your server!
The MOTW is a special HTML comment which, if included in an HTML file,
says to IE: "execute this file under the security restrictions of the
Internet zone, not the Local zone". This lets you test your files "as
if" they were actually on the web. Despite what many people seem to
think, the MOTW feature is not a security hole, of any descripton.
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
TC wrote:
Yes, good idea to validate first. I'll try that now. But I suspect that
there is no point putting an example online - it will almost certainly
*work* online :-)
I don't see why. Really, if the doctype is what makes the difference,
that proves it's not a misplaced image file or anything. So if it
works locally without doctype, and not with a doctype, the same will
be the case on the web.
>>Adding or removing an IE6 "mark of the web" (MOTW) has no affect
on this, one way or the other.
What *is* a mark of the web?
IE executes local files (C:/blah.test) under the security restrictions
of the Local zone. In days gone by, the Local zone had *less*
restrictions than the Internet zone. So local files were *more capable*
than remote ones. Now days, the Local zone has *more* restrictions than
the Internet zone, so local files are (by default) *less* capable than
remote ones. This gves problems if you want to test your files locally
- they'll have *less* capablity than when you put them on your server!
The MOTW is a special HTML comment which, if included in an HTML file,
says to IE: "execute this file under the security restrictions of the
Internet zone, not the Local zone". This lets you test your files "as
if" they were actually on the web. Despite what many people seem to
think, the MOTW feature is not a security hole, of any descripton.
Never heard of it, and never had a problem with HTML files locally,
even if I open them as local files instead of serving them as
webpages. I suppose this only comes into play when using scripts and
stuff, not plain HTML and CSS.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
TC wrote:
Els wrote:
TC wrote:
Problems:
>
(1) IE6 only displays the background image if I remove the DOCTYPE
declaration. If I retain that declaration, it does not display that
image, even though it still obeys the other aspects of the 'extlink'
style.
Usually that means that you've done something wrong in the code, which
IE will "forgive" if you have it in Quirksmode, since in Quirksmode it
doesn't "have to" follow the W3C guidelines.
Add the doctype, then *validate your code*, and fix the errors. If
then still IE doesn't show your background, come asking and show an
online example of what it is that's not working.
Yes, good idea to validate first. I'll try that now. But I suspect that
there is no point putting an example online - it will almost certainly
*work* online :-)
Ok, I just validated my file C:/test.htm at http://validator.w3.org/.
It objected (rather obscurely) to the missing TITLE element. I added
<TITLE>blah</TITLEto the HEAD element, and now it validates as: "This
Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!".
I re-checked what I said in my original post, and it is still the same.
The DOCTYPE element stops the background mage from rendering when I run
the HTML file from my hard disk :-(
Any ideas why?
TIA,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
In article <11**********************@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups .com>,
TC <gg*************@spamgourmet.comwrote:
>C:\styles.css:
.extlink {
background: url(http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat
right middle;
right center;
padding-right: 12px; }
Questions:
(1) Why does the DOCTYPE stop IE6 displaying the image?
Presumably it allows this bug in non-standards mode.
>(2) Why doesn't FF display the image at all?
Because it _should_ ignore the whole rule if there an error.
>(3) What should I do to resolve this, to enable local testing of the
files on my hard disk?
Correct the CSS. In Firefox 1.5 the errors are shown in the Javascript
Console (Tools/ Javascript Console) - to be renamed Error Console in
Firefox 2 as it shows other errors.
John
--
John P Baker
TC wrote:
>Yes, good idea to validate first. I'll try that now. But I suspect that
there is no point putting an example online - it will almost certainly
*work* online :-)
Ok, I just validated my file C:/test.htm at http://validator.w3.org/.
It objected (rather obscurely) to the missing TITLE element. I added
<TITLE>blah</TITLEto the HEAD element, and now it validates as: "This
Page Is Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!".
I re-checked what I said in my original post, and it is still the same.
The DOCTYPE element stops the background mage from rendering when I run
the HTML file from my hard disk :-(
Any ideas why?
Can you put the example online?
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
Els wrote:
TC wrote:
Yes, good idea to validate first. I'll try that now. But I suspect that
there is no point putting an example online - it will almost certainly
*work* online :-)
I don't see why. Really, if the doctype is what makes the difference,
that proves it's not a misplaced image file or anything. So if it
works locally without doctype, and not with a doctype, the same will
be the case on the web.
Ok. I could be wrong in that assumption. Now I will actually test it!
If it still goes wrong when run from the web, I'll post an online URL
here.
The MOTW is (snip)
Never heard of it, and never had a problem with HTML files locally,
even if I open them as local files instead of serving them as
webpages. I suppose this only comes into play when using scripts and
stuff, not plain HTML and CSS.
Yes, it's only relevant when IE thinks the page has "active content"
(eg. scripts). In theory, the MOTW should just suppress the prompt that
IE issues to ask the user if he wants to run that content. But in
practice, I've found some cases where including an MOTW (to suppress
that prompt), does *not* produce the same effect as excludng it &
replying "yes" to the prompt.
There's lots of usenet comment on "mark of the web" or MOTW.
Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc.atspace.com
JP. Baker wrote:
In article <11**********************@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups .com>,
TC <gg*************@spamgourmet.comwrote:
C:\styles.css:
.extlink {
background: url(http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat right middle;
right center;
Right ** ON ** !
Thanks - that was the problem. It now works fine in IE6 and FF1.5. I
double-checked, but couldn't see it for looking!
I've answered nearly 10,000 usenet questions myself, mainly regarding
MS Access, over the past 12+ years or so. It's really good to get an
answer to one of my own problems! What an amazing resource, is usenet.
Thanks to you & Els,
Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
Els wrote:
Can you put the example online?
Resolved per other post. Thanks for your help :-) Yea usenet!
Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
TC wrote:
JP. Baker wrote:
>In article <11**********************@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups .com>,
TC <gg*************@spamgourmet.comwrote:
>>>C:\styles.css:
.extlink {
background: url(http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat right middle;
right center;
Right ** ON ** !
That's what I said - very first line in first reply. I'm surprised it
got past the validator. Or maybe you only validated the HTML... ?
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
Els wrote:
TC wrote:
.extlink {
background: url(http://tc2.atspace.com/extlink.gif) no-repeat
right middle;
Make that right center.
Els, I just realized, that I ignored your suggestion (above) because I
thought (when I read it) that you were just suggesting a cosmetic
change. (Ie. "it would look better centered, instead of where you
currently have it".)
I didn't see that you had noticed that my syntax was wrong. The other
responded said the same thing. But you saw it first! Thanks again,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
Els wrote:
That's what I said - very first line in first reply. I'm surprised it
got past the validator. Or maybe you only validated the HTML... ?
Yes. I just realized that, & replied above accordingly :-)
Maybe the w3c html validator does not validate the referenced css? I'll
try validating the original error with a css validator & post back
here.
Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
TC wrote:
Els wrote:
That's what I said - very first line in first reply. I'm surprised it
got past the validator. Or maybe you only validated the HTML... ?
Yes. I just realized that, & replied above accordingly :-)
Maybe the w3c html validator does not validate the referenced css? I'll
try validating the original error with a css validator & post back here.
Geez I'm being enormously slow on the uptake here! :-((
You said, maybe I only validated the HTML !!
Exactamundo.
I just validated the orgnal (bad) CSS at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator . It said:
"Invalid number : background Too many values or values are not
recognized : url( http://i.microsoft.com/h/en-us/i/msnlogo.gif)
no-repeat right middle"
Q.E.D. :-)
Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
TC wrote:
Els wrote:
>TC wrote:
>>Problems:
(1) IE6 only displays the background image if I remove the DOCTYPE
declaration. If I retain that declaration, it does not display that
image, even though it still obeys the other aspects of the 'extlink'
style.
Usually that means that you've done something wrong in the code, which
IE will "forgive" if you have it in Quirksmode, since in Quirksmode it
doesn't "have to" follow the W3C guidelines.
Add the doctype, then *validate your code*, and fix the errors. If
then still IE doesn't show your background, come asking and show an
online example of what it is that's not working.
Yes, good idea to validate first. I'll try that now. But I suspect that
there is no point putting an example online - it will almost certainly
*work* online :-)
>>Adding or removing an IE6 "mark of the web" (MOTW) has no affect
on this, one way or the other.
What *is* a mark of the web?
IE executes local files (C:/blah.test) under the security restrictions
of the Local zone.
When I load a on my hard drive into IE as a file without using http, the
security level indicator shows "My Computer", not Local zone.
In days gone by, the Local zone had *less*
restrictions than the Internet zone. So local files were *more capable*
than remote ones. Now days, the Local zone has *more* restrictions than
the Internet zone, so local files are (by default) *less* capable than
remote ones.
Oh? I've observed the opposite, and this would make no sense, the whole
point being that you trust your own resources more than you trust other
people's.
I think you may be misinterpreting the situation. The current security
level is based on the page currently in your browser. If the page in
your browser is external, a higher security level applies. A *link* is
subject to fewer restrictions (if any at all) than a *link* to a local
file, the whole point being that if an external page is trying to get
you to click a link to your own files, it might be because it's trying
to cause trouble.
"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.netwrote in message
news:94******************************@giganews.com ...
Els wrote:
What *is* a mark of the web?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/a...rview/motw.asp
Interesting. I've seen those type of lines, primarily when emailing files
from an IE environment at work to my Firefox-based environment at home. I've
just deleted them.
Never heard of the term "mark of the web" before though.
--
Richard
Harlan Messinger wrote:
TC wrote:
In days gone by, the Local zone had *less*
restrictions than the Internet zone. So local files were *more capable*
than remote ones. Now days, the Local zone has *more* restrictions than
the Internet zone, so local files are (by default) *less* capable than
remote ones.
Oh? I've observed the opposite, and this would make no sense, the whole
point being that you trust your own resources more than you trust other
people's.
No, I believe that I'm right. Check the link Ed Mullen posted. "The
role of the MOTW is more prominent with Internet Explorer 6 for
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) because of increased security
restrictions in the Local Machine zone. When you are developing Web
content, the MOTW enables you to test your active HTML documents in the
security zone where you intend the pages to run" [instead of in the
increased security restrictions of the Local Machine zone]
Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
TC wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
TC wrote:
In days gone by, the Local zone had *less*
restrictions than the Internet zone. So local files were *more capable*
than remote ones. Now days, the Local zone has *more* restrictions than
the Internet zone, so local files are (by default) *less* capable than
remote ones.
Oh? I've observed the opposite, and this would make no sense, the whole
point being that you trust your own resources more than you trust other
people's.
No, I believe that I'm right. Check the link Ed Mullen posted. "The
role of the MOTW is more prominent with Internet Explorer 6 for
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) because of increased security
restrictions in the Local Machine zone. When you are developing Web
content, the MOTW enables you to test your active HTML documents in the
security zone where you intend the pages to run" [instead of in the
increased security restrictions of the Local Machine zone]
For example, here is one of many posts on the issue. It shows it well,
from a user perspective: (absurdly long URL follows) http://groups.google.com/group/micro...505e0b171cf2a8
Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
TC wrote:
TC wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
TC wrote:
In days gone by, the Local zone had *less*
restrictions than the Internet zone. So local files were *more capable*
than remote ones. Now days, the Local zone has *more* restrictions than
the Internet zone, so local files are (by default) *less* capable than
remote ones.
>
Oh? I've observed the opposite, and this would make no sense, the whole
point being that you trust your own resources more than you trust other
people's.
No, I believe that I'm right. Check the link Ed Mullen posted. "The
role of the MOTW is more prominent with Internet Explorer 6 for
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) because of increased security
restrictions in the Local Machine zone. When you are developing Web
content, the MOTW enables you to test your active HTML documents in the
security zone where you intend the pages to run" [instead of in the
increased security restrictions of the Local Machine zone]
For example, here is one of many posts on the issue. It shows it well,
from a user perspective: (absurdly long URL follows)
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...505e0b171cf2a8
Oops, when you've followed that link, go back to the first post in that
thread.
Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com
TC wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
>TC wrote:
>>In days gone by, the Local zone had *less*
restrictions than the Internet zone. So local files were *more capable*
than remote ones. Now days, the Local zone has *more* restrictions than
the Internet zone, so local files are (by default) *less* capable than
remote ones.
Oh? I've observed the opposite, and this would make no sense, the whole
point being that you trust your own resources more than you trust other
people's.
No, I believe that I'm right. Check the link Ed Mullen posted. "The
role of the MOTW is more prominent with Internet Explorer 6 for
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) because of increased security
restrictions in the Local Machine zone. When you are developing Web
content, the MOTW enables you to test your active HTML documents in the
security zone where you intend the pages to run" [instead of in the
increased security restrictions of the Local Machine zone]
The clearer explanation is at the bottom: "Because the Local Machine
zone has so few security restrictions, active HTML documents running on
the local machine have access to the computer's entire file system. The
MOTW aids Internet Explorer in protecting the user from the risks of
running these documents in the Local Machine zone. By referencing the
MOTW, Internet Explorer can force these Web pages into a zone that has
more restrictions, such as the Internet zone. At the same time, the MOTW
cannot be used to elevate Web pages to a zone with fewer restrictions.
Forced out of the Local Machine zone, the active content has no access
to the computer's file system."
It moves the files *into* the Internet zone = "zone that has more
restrictions", because otherwise they'd be treated as Local Machine
files with few restrictions.
Harlan Messinger wrote:
TC wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
TC wrote:
>In days gone by, the Local zone had *less*
restrictions than the Internet zone. So local files were *more capable*
than remote ones. Now days, the Local zone has *more* restrictions than
the Internet zone, so local files are (by default) *less* capable than
remote ones.
Oh? I've observed the opposite, and this would make no sense, the whole
point being that you trust your own resources more than you trust other
people's.
No, I believe that I'm right. Check the link Ed Mullen posted. "The
role of the MOTW is more prominent with Internet Explorer 6 for
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) because of increased security
restrictions in the Local Machine zone. When you are developing Web
content, the MOTW enables you to test your active HTML documents in the
security zone where you intend the pages to run" [instead of in the
increased security restrictions of the Local Machine zone]
The clearer explanation is at the bottom: "Because the Local Machine
zone has so few security restrictions, active HTML documents running on
the local machine have access to the computer's entire file system. The
MOTW aids Internet Explorer in protecting the user from the risks of
running these documents in the Local Machine zone. By referencing the
MOTW, Internet Explorer can force these Web pages into a zone that has
more restrictions, such as the Internet zone. At the same time, the MOTW
cannot be used to elevate Web pages to a zone with fewer restrictions.
Forced out of the Local Machine zone, the active content has no access
to the computer's file system."
It moves the files *into* the Internet zone = "zone that has more
restrictions", because otherwise they'd be treated as Local Machine
files with few restrictions.
You missed the next statement: "Note: Windows XP SP2 applications
including Internet Explorer 6 that take advantage of the Local Machine
Zone Lockdown security feature run in an even more restricted
environment than the Internet zone."
In XP SP2, with the Local Machine lockdown, the local zone has *more*
restrictions than the Internet zone. This was an important change in
SP2.
If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Create a simple web page that
includes some javascript. Run it from your local hard disk. On XP SP2,
IE6 will ask you to confirm the script. Now add an MOTW & run it again.
Now IE6 *will not* ask, it will run the script without asking. The MOTW
moves the script from a *more* restrictive execution environment (the
Local zone), to a *less* restrictive one (the Internet one).
HTH,
TC (MVP MSAccess) http://tc2.atspace.com This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: CJM |
last post by:
I am building several (common) db-driven intranet sites (so I cant
post URL), using a 3-frame layout; header, menu & main pages. The
styling and some of the positioning is done via CSS.
Up until...
|
by: Patrick |
last post by:
Hi
I am fairly new to CSS and the web.I am trying to build a site more to
practice my skills than for the site itself.
I have been focusing on CSS and try my best to make it work in I.E
6.0,...
|
by: Alex |
last post by:
I created a page ( http://www.ayida.net/benaglia/chi.html ) based on
the example B of the fixed-width layout i found here:
http://builder.com.com/5100-6371-5314471-2.html
the layout needs this...
|
by: Hello |
last post by:
Here problem is that in Mozilla the logo "The Website" will not pad from the
edge.
http://www.clickatus.com/test/
Also, when I put in loose DOCTYPE it blows the whole thing... Help......
|
by: The Good Son |
last post by:
I'm trying to get my head around a problem that has me baffled.
The following element:
#wrapper {border:1px solid #000;background:#fff;}
Renders as expected when using this DTD:
...
|
by: Martin Nadoll |
last post by:
Hello,
i am using Dreamweaver MX 2004 to develop my php and html-sites.
Dreamweaver includes a doctype-definition when creating a new page, in my
case:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML...
|
by: Edward |
last post by:
Why is it when I have a DOCTYPE line in my HTML then "margin" and
"padding" are ignored?
This happens in both inline and stylesheet styles.
It happens for both XHTML and HTML doctypes.
It...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?SGFyZHkgV2FuZw==?= |
last post by:
Hi all,
I have a web form, and I want to use ModalPopupExtender from Ajax Toolkit.
I am using IE 7.0 as browser, VS 2005 and Ajax and Ajax Tool Kit installed.
Windows XP Pro.
Now I have a...
|
by: MattB |
last post by:
I haven't given much thought to DOCTYPE before. I have a vague idea of
what it is and why it's there: to tell the browser what rules to follow
when rendering the page.
I have a ASP.net 1.1...
|
by: tader |
last post by:
so i got script like that
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Drag and Drop</title>
<style>
#slater {
display:block;
|
by: lllomh |
last post by:
Define the method first
this.state = {
buttonBackgroundColor: 'green',
isBlinking: false, // A new status is added to identify whether the button is blinking or not
}
autoStart=()=>{
|
by: DJRhino |
last post by:
Was curious if anyone else was having this same issue or not....
I was just Up/Down graded to windows 11 and now my access combo boxes are not acting right. With win 10 I could start typing...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Hello everyone,
I have a question and would like some advice on network connectivity. I have one computer connected to my router via WiFi, but I have two other computers that I want to be able to...
|
by: NeoPa |
last post by:
Introduction
For this article I'll be using a very simple database which has Form (clsForm) & Report (clsReport) classes that simply handle making the calling Form invisible until the Form, or all...
|
by: Teri B |
last post by:
Hi, I have created a sub-form Roles. In my course form the user selects the roles assigned to the course.
0ne-to-many. One course many roles.
Then I created a report based on the Course form and...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 1 Nov 2023 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM)
Please note that the UK and Europe revert to winter time on...
|
by: NeoPa |
last post by:
Introduction
For this article I'll be focusing on the Report (clsReport) class. This simply handles making the calling Form invisible until all of the Reports opened by it have been closed, when it...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next online meeting of the Access Europe User Group will be on Wednesday 6 Dec 2023 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM).
In this month's session, Mike...
|
by: GKJR |
last post by:
Does anyone have a recommendation to build a standalone application to replace an Access database? I have my bookkeeping software I developed in Access that I would like to make available to other...
| |
