473,321 Members | 1,778 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,321 software developers and data experts.

img without src= (?!)


For quite some other reason, I was looking at the source of a Google
response page (which by the way contains some horrible SGML-related
syntax errors), and was a bit surprised to find some <img> tags with
no src= attribute. They also show up in Mozilla's View->Page
Info->Media display, in that they have Type "Image" but the "Address"
column is empty.

They use them like this:

<td height=7><img width=1 height=1 alt=""></td>

and/or this (invalid syntax but for a different reason):

<td bgcolor=#3366cc><img width=1 height=1 alt="">

What do the team think?

OK, I have been known to resort to <td ...>&nbsp;</td> in the past,
but I don't think I'd really want to do that.
Jul 20 '05 #1
20 11372
Alan J. Flavell wrote:

For quite some other reason, I was looking at the source of a Google
response page (which by the way contains some horrible SGML-related
syntax errors),
Google never paid much attention to the HTML they produce (which is
somehow weird considering they parse so much HTML for a living -- then
again, maybe all the HTML they parse convinced them it's all a mess
anyway).
Exception to Google's HTML mess is Blogger.com, which at gives it a try
(though it didn't validate throughout last time I checked... they are
using an XHTML doctype).

They use them like this:

<td height=7><img width=1 height=1 alt=""></td>

and/or this (invalid syntax but for a different reason):

<td bgcolor=#3366cc><img width=1 height=1 alt="">

What do the team think?


OK, I *believe* they somehow use this to track clicks. Note the
JavaScript function "ga()" on top of every search result page. I wrote
something on the issue a while ago but they changed their functions.
<http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/...#1087207954423
88035>

Whatever they do I'm certain every little tag means gigabytes (?) of
traffic. I could be wrong.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #2
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
- - I - - was a bit surprised to find some <img> tags with
no src= attribute.
Interesting. In principle, should we say that such elements have well-
defined rendering, if an alt attribute is present? After all, since there
is no image to be shown, a browser must, by the specifications, render
the value of the alt attribute. On the other hand, the src attribute is
required even at the syntactic level (the DTD), so strictly speaking the
specifications don't say what should happen - the document is in error,
and error processing (if any) is up to the browser.
<td height=7><img width=1 height=1 alt=""></td>
The apparent purpose is to make sure browsers don't treat the cell as
empty (which would cause some undesidered effect, like suppression of
background color).
OK, I have been known to resort to <td ...>&nbsp;</td> in the past,
but I don't think I'd really want to do that.


And it has the drawback that the cell cannot become arbitrarily small,
since the no-break space is treated as a character, occupying the same
height as other characters in the current font.

The usual trick is to use an img element with a src attribute that points
to a transparent single-pixel GIF image. I don't see any benefits that
the omission of an src attribute would have, apart from saving a little
typing or copying. I have no idea why Google has chosen the sloppy way of
using hacks.

It is surprising that IE seems to treat an <img width=1 height=1 alt="">
by not displaying anything (or perhaps just using a one pixel spacing).
If the width and height attributes are omitted, the usual symbol for
broken image is shown. The same happens if the attribute values are
"sufficiently" large. I get that symbol for width="10" but not for
width="9" (tested with a few different font sizes, so I guess it does not
depend on font size).

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #3
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
For quite some other reason, I was looking at the source of a Google
response page (which by the way contains some horrible SGML-related
syntax errors), and was a bit surprised to find some <img> tags with
no src= attribute. They also show up in Mozilla's View->Page
Info->Media display, in that they have Type "Image" but the "Address"
column is empty.

They use them like this:

<td height=7><img width=1 height=1 alt=""></td>
Hmmm... Interesting. A /spacer gif/, without the *spacer.gif*! It's
definitely invalid, the src attributes is required, as stated in the DTD.

<!ATTLIST IMG
%attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events --
src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
...

Though, it's strange that they actually decided to include the required
alt attribute‽
What do the team think?
It's not the worst atrocity Google has committed in their markup, but it
is quite funny. I knew they broke every other rule in the book, such as
using tables for layout, blockquote for indentation, unencoded
ampersands in URIs, markup above the DOCTYPE and <html> (when viewing
cached pages) etc… but this one is new to me, I've never seen anyone do
that before.
OK, I have been known to resort to <td ...>&nbsp;</td> in the past,


Well, there can be legitimate structural and semantic reasons for doing
that if a table of data requires an empty cell, though I would have
thought that just using <td></td> would be acceptable in those cases.
If the reason is purely presentational, then it's not acceptable.

Does anyone know the reason why editors, such as Dreamweaver, include an
&nbsp; in empty cells like that by default? Is it for compatibility
with older UAs or something?

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please direct all spam to ab***@127.0.0.1
Thank you.
Jul 20 '05 #4
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
OK, I have been known to resort to <td ...>&nbsp;</td> in the past,


Well, there can be legitimate structural and semantic reasons for
doing that if a table of data requires an empty cell, though I would
have thought that just using <td></td> would be acceptable in those
cases. If the reason is purely presentational, then it's not
acceptable.


I always include the non-breaking space in table cells too. I thought
it was needed (DTD? Browser handling? Netscape 4...?). You know, other
people don't even make their cells match (e.g. 4 colums in the first
row, 3 in the second, 8 in the next... no colspan either... that's the
sort of HTML I often have to work on).

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #5
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Does anyone know the reason why editors, such as Dreamweaver, include an
&nbsp; in empty cells like that by default?


If you just code <td> </td> (or the same with th) then you'll find
quite a few browser/versions which omit border, background colour etc.
of the empty cell.
Jul 20 '05 #6
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
Does anyone know the reason why editors, such as Dreamweaver, include an
&nbsp; in empty cells like that by default?


If you just code <td> </td> (or the same with th) then you'll find
quite a few browser/versions which omit border, background colour etc.
of the empty cell.


Most support table{empty-cells:show}, as per usual IE doesn't, which imo
justifies the &nbsp; hack.

Btw, which browsers don't show the background colour?

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #7
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
It's not the worst atrocity Google has committed in their markup,
The strange thing is that much of the markup bloat seems to do
absolutely nothing. There are nested tabled that could be done with
<div> elements instead, saving characters and God only knows how much
money in bandwith.
Does anyone know the reason why editors, such as Dreamweaver, include
an &nbsp; in empty cells like that by default?


No. But I have just such construct in form that uses S. Poley's
excellent js form validation. The documentation in the script says some
browsers have trouble if you try to add a text node to an empty <td>
element, so it should include &nbsp;.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #8

"Lachlan Hunt" <la**********@lachy.id.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:UZ******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
For quite some other reason, I was looking at the source of a Google
response page (which by the way contains some horrible SGML-related
syntax errors), and was a bit surprised to find some <img> tags with
no src= attribute. They also show up in Mozilla's View->Page
Info->Media display, in that they have Type "Image" but the "Address"
column is empty.

They use them like this:

<td height=7><img width=1 height=1 alt=""></td>
Hmmm... Interesting. A /spacer gif/, without the *spacer.gif*! It's
definitely invalid, the src attributes is required, as stated in the DTD.

<!ATTLIST IMG
%attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events --
src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
...

Though, it's strange that they actually decided to include the required
alt attribute‽
What do the team think?


It's not the worst atrocity Google has committed in their markup, but it
is quite funny. I knew they broke every other rule in the book, such as
using tables for layout, blockquote for indentation, unencoded
ampersands in URIs, markup above the DOCTYPE and <html> (when viewing
cached pages) etc… but this one is new to me, I've never seen anyone do
that before.
OK, I have been known to resort to <td ...>&nbsp;</td> in the past,


Well, there can be legitimate structural and semantic reasons for doing
that if a table of data requires an empty cell, though I would have
thought that just using <td></td> would be acceptable in those cases.
If the reason is purely presentational, then it's not acceptable.


Depends what you mean by "acceptable"--see below.

Does anyone know the reason why editors, such as Dreamweaver, include an
&nbsp; in empty cells like that by default? Is it for compatibility
with older UAs or something?
No, it's the only way to deal with the treatment of empty cells in all the
graphical browsers I have: Netscape 4.7, IE 6, and current versions of
Mozilla, Firebird, and Opera. In the absence of special treatment with CSS,
all of these browsers represent tables by default with separated cell
borders, and *all* of them omit a cell's border if the cell is empty. Maybe
somebody considers this a feature, but I consider it a bug--an empty cell is
still supposed to look like a cell. Sticking &nbsp; into a cell makes the
cell's border appear in all of the above browsers.

The same result is achieved in CSS2-compliant browsers by using empty-cells:
show. This doesn't work in Netscape 4.7 or IE6.

See http://gavelcade.com/tests/empty-cells.html.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please direct all spam to ab***@127.0.0.1
Thank you.


Jul 20 '05 #9

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2o************@uni-berlin.de...

"Lachlan Hunt" <la**********@lachy.id.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:UZ******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
For quite some other reason, I was looking at the source of a Google
response page (which by the way contains some horrible SGML-related
syntax errors), and was a bit surprised to find some <img> tags with
no src= attribute. They also show up in Mozilla's View->Page
Info->Media display, in that they have Type "Image" but the "Address"
column is empty.

They use them like this:

<td height=7><img width=1 height=1 alt=""></td>
Hmmm... Interesting. A /spacer gif/, without the *spacer.gif*! It's
definitely invalid, the src attributes is required, as stated in the DTD.
<!ATTLIST IMG
%attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events --
src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
...

Though, it's strange that they actually decided to include the required
alt attribute‽
What do the team think?


It's not the worst atrocity Google has committed in their markup, but it
is quite funny. I knew they broke every other rule in the book, such as
using tables for layout, blockquote for indentation, unencoded
ampersands in URIs, markup above the DOCTYPE and <html> (when viewing
cached pages) etc… but this one is new to me, I've never seen anyone do
that before.
OK, I have been known to resort to <td ...>&nbsp;</td> in the past,


Well, there can be legitimate structural and semantic reasons for doing
that if a table of data requires an empty cell, though I would have
thought that just using <td></td> would be acceptable in those cases.
If the reason is purely presentational, then it's not acceptable.


Depends what you mean by "acceptable"--see below.

Does anyone know the reason why editors, such as Dreamweaver, include an
&nbsp; in empty cells like that by default? Is it for compatibility
with older UAs or something?


No, it's the only way to deal with the treatment of empty cells in all the
graphical browsers I have: Netscape 4.7, IE 6, and current versions of
Mozilla, Firebird, and Opera. In the absence of special treatment with

CSS, all of these browsers represent tables by default with separated cell
borders, and *all* of them omit a cell's border if the cell is empty. Maybe somebody considers this a feature, but I consider it a bug--an empty cell is still supposed to look like a cell. Sticking &nbsp; into a cell makes the
cell's border appear in all of the above browsers.

The same result is achieved in CSS2-compliant browsers by using empty-cells: show. This doesn't work in Netscape 4.7 or IE6.

See http://gavelcade.com/tests/empty-cells.html.


Argh--I had forgotten to include the doctype, so all was in quirks mode.
When I added the strict doctype, Mozilla and Firebird showed empty cells as
I think they should look--with borders--even without &nbsp; or explicit
empty-cells: show. Opera, IE 6, and Netscape 4.7 still display the page as
before. The updated version is posted.

Jul 20 '05 #10
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2o************@uni-berlin.de:
In the absence of special
treatment with CSS, all of these browsers represent tables by
default with separated cell borders, and *all* of them omit a cell's
border if the cell is empty.


~pops in to point out that by default, they display no border at all.~

--
How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
<http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>
Jul 20 '05 #11

"Sam Hughes" <hu****@rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:Xn**************************@130.133.1.4...
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2o************@uni-berlin.de:
In the absence of special
treatment with CSS, all of these browsers represent tables by
default with separated cell borders, and *all* of them omit a cell's
border if the cell is empty.


~pops in to point out that by default, they display no border at all.~


I meant, if you have border="1" in the table tag!

Jul 20 '05 #12
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in news:2o45muF6iqf4U1
@uni-berlin.de:

"Sam Hughes" <hu****@rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:Xn**************************@130.133.1.4...
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2o************@uni-berlin.de:
> In the absence of special
> treatment with CSS, all of these browsers represent tables by
> default with separated cell borders, and *all* of them omit a cell's
> border if the cell is empty.


~pops in to point out that by default, they display no border at all.~


I meant, if you have border="1" in the table tag!


Yah, I just noticed that I got confused for a second, so I decided that
maybe I'd like to clear that up :)
--
How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
<http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>
Jul 20 '05 #13

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2o************@uni-berlin.de...

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2o************@uni-berlin.de...

"Lachlan Hunt" <la**********@lachy.id.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:UZ******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> For quite some other reason, I was looking at the source of a Google
> response page (which by the way contains some horrible SGML-related
> syntax errors), and was a bit surprised to find some <img> tags with
> no src= attribute. They also show up in Mozilla's View->Page
> Info->Media display, in that they have Type "Image" but the "Address" > column is empty.
>
> They use them like this:
>
> <td height=7><img width=1 height=1 alt=""></td>

Hmmm... Interesting. A /spacer gif/, without the *spacer.gif*! It's
definitely invalid, the src attributes is required, as stated in the DTD.
<!ATTLIST IMG
%attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events -- src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
...

Though, it's strange that they actually decided to include the required alt attribute‽

> What do the team think?

It's not the worst atrocity Google has committed in their markup, but it is quite funny. I knew they broke every other rule in the book, such as using tables for layout, blockquote for indentation, unencoded
ampersands in URIs, markup above the DOCTYPE and <html> (when viewing
cached pages) etc… but this one is new to me, I've never seen anyone do that before.

> OK, I have been known to resort to <td ...>&nbsp;</td> in the past,

Well, there can be legitimate structural and semantic reasons for doing that if a table of data requires an empty cell, though I would have
thought that just using <td></td> would be acceptable in those cases.
If the reason is purely presentational, then it's not acceptable.
Depends what you mean by "acceptable"--see below.

Does anyone know the reason why editors, such as Dreamweaver, include an &nbsp; in empty cells like that by default? Is it for compatibility
with older UAs or something?


No, it's the only way to deal with the treatment of empty cells in all the graphical browsers I have: Netscape 4.7, IE 6, and current versions of
Mozilla, Firebird, and Opera. In the absence of special treatment with

CSS,
all of these browsers represent tables by default with separated cell
borders, and *all* of them omit a cell's border if the cell is empty.

Maybe
somebody considers this a feature, but I consider it a bug--an empty cell is
still supposed to look like a cell. Sticking &nbsp; into a cell makes
the cell's border appear in all of the above browsers.

The same result is achieved in CSS2-compliant browsers by using

empty-cells:
show. This doesn't work in Netscape 4.7 or IE6.

See http://gavelcade.com/tests/empty-cells.html.


Argh--I had forgotten to include the doctype, so all was in quirks mode.
When I added the strict doctype, Mozilla and Firebird showed empty cells

as I think they should look--with borders--even without &nbsp; or explicit
empty-cells: show. Opera, IE 6, and Netscape 4.7 still display the page as
before. The updated version is posted.


Argh again--if I'm using border="1", I can't have a strict doctype. But you
get the idea.

Jul 20 '05 #14
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

Kindly learn how to snip quotes.
Argh again--if I'm using border="1", I can't have a strict doctype.


The border attribute on the table element is not deprecated.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #15
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

- - I - - was a bit surprised to find some <img> tags with
no src= attribute.

Interesting. In principle, should we say that such elements have well-
defined rendering, if an alt attribute is present? After all, since there
is no image to be shown, a browser must, by the specifications, render
the value of the alt attribute. On the other hand, the src attribute is
required even at the syntactic level (the DTD), so strictly speaking the
specifications don't say what should happen - the document is in error,
and error processing (if any) is up to the browser.

<td height=7><img width=1 height=1 alt=""></td>

The apparent purpose is to make sure browsers don't treat the cell as
empty (which would cause some undesidered effect, like suppression of
background color).
OK, I have been known to resort to <td ...>&nbsp;</td> in the past,
but I don't think I'd really want to do that.


And it has the drawback that the cell cannot become arbitrarily small,
since the no-break space is treated as a character, occupying the same
height as other characters in the current font.


I do think it's simpler to use <td>&nbsp;</td>.. this is how I use it
mostly:

<tr><td class="sp" height=5>&nbsp;</td></tr>

in CSS I specify that class "sp" has a font-size of 1px.. so I'm
assuming my non-breaking space is one pixel high (and probably about one
pixel wide too..) :)

Frances

The usual trick is to use an img element with a src attribute that points
to a transparent single-pixel GIF image. I don't see any benefits that
the omission of an src attribute would have, apart from saving a little
typing or copying. I have no idea why Google has chosen the sloppy way of
using hacks.

It is surprising that IE seems to treat an <img width=1 height=1 alt="">
by not displaying anything (or perhaps just using a one pixel spacing).
If the width and height attributes are omitted, the usual symbol for
broken image is shown. The same happens if the attribute values are
"sufficiently" large. I get that symbol for width="10" but not for
width="9" (tested with a few different font sizes, so I guess it does not
depend on font size).


Jul 20 '05 #16
Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com> wrote:
I do think it's simpler to use <td>&nbsp;</td>..
Simpler that what? If we don't just use the empty-cells property in CSS
(which unfortunately does not work on IE), then we are playing tricks
anyway. In trickery, I would prefer robustness to shortness of code.
<tr><td class="sp" height=5>&nbsp;</td></tr>

in CSS I specify that class "sp" has a font-size of 1px..


Then you are relying on behavior where the browser actually sets
font-size to 1px, despite the fact that fonts cannot be that small.
Technically, the computed value (such as 1px) is what should be used in
further calculations, instead of the real value used (which might be 9px
or 6px, though some people think they can design fonts of size 5px or
even 4px). But I wouldn't count on that; the day that browser vendors
start realizing that font-size values must generally be mapped to a
repertoire of actually available, or decently constructible, physical
font sizes, they might miss the finer point.

Besides, your trick fails when CSS is off.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #17
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
<td height=7><img width=1 height=1 alt=""></td>
The apparent purpose is to make sure browsers don't treat the cell as
empty (which would cause some undesidered effect, like suppression of
background color).


Indeed: and/or borders.
OK, I have been known to resort to <td ...>&nbsp;</td> in the past,
but I don't think I'd really want to do that.


And it has the drawback that the cell cannot become arbitrarily small,


True. In the situations where I use it, that's of no concern, since
there are other cells of the same table row/column which contain real
content and need a meaningful amount of space. My purpose in using
the things is admittedly cosmetic - and thus arguably *should* be
delegated to CSS, but that doesn't yet work reliably, whereas I found
the &nbsp; trick gave acceptable results and didn't offend me too much
in terms of structure and accessibility.

If I was one of those people who still stubbornly try to achieve
pixel-exact positioning by locking down with tables and transparent
gifs, like the misguided author of
http://www.gla.ac.uk/webpublishing/accessibility/ , then the solution
would /not/ be to find better ways to achieve pixel-exact layout, but
rather, to adopt more-flexible design principles. I assume you'd
agree.
since the no-break space is treated as a character, occupying the same
height as other characters in the current font.
I'll leave you to discuss that detail in another part of the thread,
since, as I say, for my purposes it's unimportant. ;-)
the omission of an src attribute would have, apart from saving a little
typing or copying. I have no idea why Google has chosen the sloppy way of
using hacks.


It -does- seem rather unbalanced what they're doing: on the one hand,
saving the odd character here and there - and producing HTML syntax
errors and SGML anomalies[1] as a result of it; on the other hand,
stuffing in clutter that has no need to be there at all.

cheers

[1] Parsed to the rules of SGML,

<a href=/advanced_search?hl=en>Advanced Search</a>

doesn't mean at all what they intended it to mean, as you
well know. For the sake of saving a pair of quotes.
Jul 20 '05 #18
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> writes:
Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com> wrote:
in CSS I specify that class "sp" has a font-size of 1px..
Then you are relying on behavior where the browser actually sets
font-size to 1px, despite the fact that fonts cannot be that small.

.... even 4px). But I wouldn't count on that; the day that browser vendors
start realizing that font-size values must generally be mapped to a
repertoire of actually available, or decently constructible, physical
font sizes, they might miss the finer point.


To an extent they already have, accidentally, due to the fairly
widespread existence of 'minimum font size' settings in modern
browsers (certainly on some browsers these are set non-zero, I have
one that won't reduce it below 4px).

--
Chris
Jul 20 '05 #19
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
My purpose in using
the things is admittedly cosmetic - and thus arguably *should* be
delegated to CSS, but that doesn't yet work reliably, whereas I found
the &nbsp; trick gave acceptable results and didn't offend me too much
in terms of structure and accessibility.


This raises the question whether it would be better to put some actual
nonblank content into the cell. As I have suggested at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/...ls.html#better
one might put e.g. "N/A" or "-" or ".." into a cell - in order to be more
informative (_why_ does this cell lack real content?), but also as a side
effect to make the cell nonempty and therefore "normal".

Besides, you might make the nonempty content invisible. :-) You could put
e.g. ".." into a cell but use CSS to make the cell's content color the
same as its background color. This would imply that e.g. on a text
browser and on a speech browser, the content like ".." would be actually
presented, despite being invisible in normal graphic browsing; and this
might well be desirable.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #20
Quite right, but in return kindly refrain from top-posting. :-)

"Spartanicus" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1q********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie...
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

Kindly learn how to snip quotes.
Argh again--if I'm using border="1", I can't have a strict doctype.


The border attribute on the table element is not deprecated.

--
Spartanicus


Jul 20 '05 #21

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

54
by: Max Quordlepleen | last post by:
Apologies for the crossposting, I wasn't sure which of these groups to ask this in. I have been lurking in these groups for a week or so, trying to glean what I need to design a simple, clean...
6
by: Tom Szabo | last post by:
Hi, I am wondering if it is possible to send/ submit something to a server and not to update the page. Considering a large page, when the user clicks on an item, I like to send a message to the...
1
by: laredotornado | last post by:
Hello, I want to play an audio file embedded on my page by clicking on an audio image and the page change to a new page. Is there a cross-browser Javascript way to do this? Right now the code I...
31
by: Greg Scharlemann | last post by:
Given some recent success on a simple form validation (mainly due to the kind folks in this forum), I've tried to tackle something a bit more difficult. I'm pulling data down from a database and...
1
by: Jerry Tovar | last post by:
I am using .Net 2003 on a XPPro running IIS. I am unable to view any of my ASPX webforms in a browser unless I modify the .ASPX file and replace Codebehind="employee.aspx.cs" with...
17
by: psimakov | last post by:
I wrote a small piece about AJAX without XML. http://www.softwaresecretweapons.com/jspwiki/Wiki.jsp?page=AJAXWithoutXML Is anybody else doing it? Please share your thoughts...
4
by: blaq | last post by:
When one encounters mysterious gaps between elements, like: <div> <img src="one.gif"> <img src="two.gif"> </div> it's typically because the browser renders whitespace in the code as text....
13
by: sam_cit | last post by:
Hi Everyone, I have the following unit to explain the problem that i have, class sample { public : sample() { printf("in sample...\n"); }
6
by: codeseeker1 | last post by:
currently iam working with a php code along with ajax. code works properly with an alert box.when alert box is removed,rest of code not working.can anyone help? thanx in advance
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 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 former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.