toolbar.visible does not operate

[DEN]

Hello,
I need to remove toolbar and menubar from my current window (not opened
with window.open, it would be too easy!!!).
I've tried to use the window.toolbar. visible=false property,
but it has no effect.
No error message in the javascript console, nor any effect on the
current window.
I've tried Firefox and IE, same effect....
What should I do

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Grant Wagner wrote:

"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <Po*********@we b.de> wrote [...]

Grant Wagner wrote:

[...] netscape.securi ty.PrivilegeMan ager.enablePriv ilege('Universa lBrowserWrite') ;

window.toolbar. visible = false;

But:

- if you attempt to do this locally, the user will get a big scary
dialog explaining that a script is about to do something scary and
ask
the user if they really want to let the script do this scary thing
[...]

Instead of the FUDish term "scary", the more reasonable and really
used term "potentiall y harmful" and the like should also be used
here, especially in an explanation for beginners.

I was using the term "scary" deliberately and repeatedly to exaggerate
the fact that the script shown has a serious drawback

As there is no alternative other than not doing it, and it could be
required in some cases, I would certainly not call it a drawback.
(in addition to the fact that it does not work in the default security
environment of Internet Explorer on Internet Web sites).
Which carries not much weight, considering the security flaws
Internet Explorer has presented us with in previous versions.
That drawback is that it requires end-user interaction that will most
likely (hopefully) result in most users choosing to not allow the script
to continue running.
If they decide so, great. I see no harm in that.
Teaching end-users that it is okay to agree to this prompt is a mistake,
and will lead to end-users taking other actions that would be
ill-advised.

Disagreed. Teaching end users to read and attempt to understand each and
every dialog they are exposed to before doing anything else is certainly
the better approach; as you called it "scary": fear is not per se a Bad
Thing. Besides, end users are not subscribed to this newsgroup, are they?
The wording was just inappropriate for a developer's newsgroup.
PointedEars
--
I hear, and I forget; I see, and I remember; I do, and I understand.
-- Chinese proverb

[Grant Wagner]

"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <Po*********@we b.de> wrote in message
news:17******** ********@Pointe dEars.de...

(in addition to the fact that it does not work in the default
security
environment of Internet Explorer on Internet Web sites).
Which carries not much weight, considering the security flaws
Internet Explorer has presented us with in previous versions.

I fail to see how past vulnerabilities have anything to do with a script
sample that will not execute in the default Internet Explorer security
environment without end-user interaction.

Or are you suggesting that the use of script that does not currently
work in the default security environment without end-user interaction,
but may some day work due to a yet to be discovered vulnerability is
proper design?

That drawback is that it requires end-user interaction that will most
likely (hopefully) result in most users choosing to not allow the
script
to continue running.

If they decide so, great. I see no harm in that.

What a strange statement to make. You see no harm in designing and
developing script on which the functionality of your site depends, but
which you hope will never be executed by the target audience?

Teaching end-users that it is okay to agree to this prompt is a
mistake,
and will lead to end-users taking other actions that would be
ill-advised.

Disagreed. Teaching end users to read and attempt to understand each
and
every dialog they are exposed to before doing anything else is
certainly
the better approach; as you called it "scary": fear is not per se a
Bad
Thing. Besides, end users are not subscribed to this newsgroup, are
they?

I do not know who, or how many people we may consider "end-users" may
subscribe to this newsgroup, and neither do you. Any speculation by
either of us would be just that, speculation. But that's entirely
irrelevant.

No one should be encouraging end-users to agree to potentially dangerous
actions.

The situation is analogous to the mytical IT manager who sent out an
E-mail advising everyone not to click on attachments, then attached a
virus scanner which he requested users run to ensure their systems were
not already infected.
The wording was just inappropriate for a developer's newsgroup.
In much the same way that comments such as the following are
inappropriate for a developer's newsgroup?

=== Begin example 1 ===

Dr John Stockton wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] posted :

VK wrote:

(Greenwich Mean Time = GMT = UTC) No, read <http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/UTC>.

Once more, Pooh, you are stupidly answering an old article in respect
of
a point which is already adequately covered in subsequent discussion.
[flame]

Get a life.
PointedEars

=== End example 1 ===

=== Begin example 2 ===

ojvm wrote:
thank for help, but i really don't know who to start.

Try yourself.
SCNR

PointedEars

=== End example 2 ===

--
Grant Wagner <gw*****@agrico reunited.com>
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Grant Wagner wrote:

"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" [...] wrote [...]

(in addition to the fact that it does not work in the default
security
environment of Internet Explorer on Internet Web sites). Which carries not much weight, considering the security flaws
Internet Explorer has presented us with in previous versions.

I fail to see how past vulnerabilities have anything to do with a script
sample that will not execute in the default Internet Explorer security
environment without end-user interaction.

Since the software is inherently insecure, there is a high probability of
present and future security flaws. Therefore I don't care much about IEs
security "concept". In fact I hope that it will be replaced ASAP
throughout the Web.
Or are you suggesting that the use of script that does not currently
work in the default security environment without end-user interaction,
but may some day work due to a yet to be discovered vulnerability is
proper design?
No.

That drawback is that it requires end-user interaction that will most
likely (hopefully) result in most users choosing to not allow the
script to continue running.

If they decide so, great. I see no harm in that.

What a strange statement to make. You see no harm in designing and
developing script on which the functionality of your site depends,
but which you hope will never be executed by the target audience?

The functionality of the site does not depend on this particular feature.
But if someone wants the feature applied to his UA, it is a Good Thing
that it is asked for before if it is addressed because of the other users
that do not want it.

Teaching end-users that it is okay to agree to this prompt is a
mistake, and will lead to end-users taking other actions that would be
ill-advised.

Disagreed. Teaching end users to read and attempt to understand each
and every dialog they are exposed to before doing anything else is
certainly the better approach; as you called it "scary": fear is not
per se a Bad Thing. Besides, end users are not subscribed to this
newsgroup, are they?

I do not know who, or how many people we may consider "end-users" may
subscribe to this newsgroup, and neither do you.

Exactly, and that was merely a rhetoric question.
Any speculation by either of us would be just that, speculation.
No, from experience alone, there is a high probability that
end-users, especially IE end users, will not read this thread.
But that's entirely irrelevant.
No, it is not. When referring to a matter Wording should be chosen
according to the probable target audience and according to the context.
No one should be encouraging end-users to agree to potentially dangerous
actions.

And nobody suggested that, on the contrary.

The wording was just inappropriate for a developer's newsgroup.

In much the same way that comments such as the following are
inappropriate for a developer's newsgroup?
[...]

Oh, an ad hominem attack.
PointedEars