Passing text to Different Sites

[BrendanMcPherson]

Hello,

Im try to do some tricks to help make a "Search Many Sites from One
Location".
http://www.act.org.au/b_nexus.htm

What I have decided to do is this:
1. You can choose which site you wish to visit from the first page,
after pressing go it takes you to a frame page.

2. Inside the frame is the site, and a hidden frame

3. the hidden frame should be able to take the variable from the url
place it in a text box,
then place the text in that text box to the external sites textbox and
then submit.

giving them the search result

so far I have made the page for choosing the sites, made the sites
frame pages.
But the frame within those pages I cant get to take the variable from
the URL
and place it inits textbox, also I dont know from there how i can make
a Timeout
so that it then passes that text information on to the external site
and submits it.

Any ideas or suggestion would be greatly appreciated.

[Randy Webb]

darwinist said the following on 8/5/2006 1:35 AM:

Randy Webb wrote:

>darwinist said the following on 8/4/2006 4:28 AM:

>>Randy Webb wrote:
darwinist said the following on 8/4/2006 3:50 AM:
so most web-browsers prevent it.
"most"? Name one that doesn't, otherwise, *all* browsers prevent it - in
a default security environment.
Good to know. I said "most" because I didn't know if there were any
major exceptions.

It doesn't take knowing, it only takes a little reasoning to figure it
out. If a browser did allow it, it wouldn't take long for people to
figure it out and stop using the broken outdated piece of crap.

People who knew about these things, sure. A lot of people use shitty
browsers in blissful ignorance of the dangers lurking.

All browsers are susceptible to the dangers lurking. Some just more so
than others.

>Too bad your posting Agent isn't any better than a browser that did
allow cross-domain scripting.

What's wrong with google groups?

It's easier to tell you what is right with it. It's a great research
tool to search the archives. For posting, it's a piece of crap.

The least it could do would be to recognize a properly delimited
signature and strip it when quoting.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup
weeklyJavascrip t Best Practices -
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[darwinist]

Randy Webb wrote:

darwinist said the following on 8/5/2006 1:35 AM:

Randy Webb wrote:

darwinist said the following on 8/4/2006 4:28 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
darwinist said the following on 8/4/2006 3:50 AM:
so most web-browsers prevent it.
"most"? Name one that doesn't, otherwise, *all* browsers prevent it - in
a default security environment.
Good to know. I said "most" because I didn't know if there were any
major exceptions.
It doesn't take knowing, it only takes a little reasoning to figure it
out. If a browser did allow it, it wouldn't take long for people to
figure it out and stop using the broken outdated piece of crap.

People who knew about these things, sure. A lot of people use shitty
browsers in blissful ignorance of the dangers lurking.

All browsers are susceptible to the dangers lurking. Some just more so
than others.

True, but some of them are "safe enough", free, and open, whereas some
of them are not. Although they're all relatively "free" these days, in
different ways.

Too bad your posting Agent isn't any better than a browser that did
allow cross-domain scripting.

What's wrong with google groups?

It's easier to tell you what is right with it. It's a great research
tool to search the archives. For posting, it's a piece of crap.

The least it could do would be to recognize a properly delimited
signature and strip it when quoting.

Have you written to them about this? I can't think of a better
web-based usenet client. And I change terminals so often...

Would it help if I deleted your signature, like this:

[ this space left intentionally blank ]

I like your web page by the way.

[Randy Webb]

darwinist said the following on 8/5/2006 3:04 AM:

Randy Webb wrote:

>darwinist said the following on 8/5/2006 1:35 AM:

>>Randy Webb wrote:
darwinist said the following on 8/4/2006 4:28 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
>darwinis t said the following on 8/4/2006 3:50 AM:
>>so most web-browsers prevent it.
>"most"? Name one that doesn't, otherwise, *all* browsers prevent it - in
>a default security environment.
Good to know. I said "most" because I didn't know if there were any
major exceptions.
It doesn't take knowing, it only takes a little reasoning to figure it
out. If a browser did allow it, it wouldn't take long for people to
figure it out and stop using the broken outdated piece of crap.
People who knew about these things, sure. A lot of people use shitty
browsers in blissful ignorance of the dangers lurking.

All browsers are susceptible to the dangers lurking. Some just more so
than others.

True, but some of them are "safe enough", free, and open, whereas some
of them are not. Although they're all relatively "free" these days, in
different ways.

I don't see how a browser that is not 100% secure is "safe enough". It
doesn't make a browser safe, it makes it less exploited is all.

>>>Too bad your posting Agent isn't any better than a browser that did
allow cross-domain scripting.
What's wrong with google groups?

It's easier to tell you what is right with it. It's a great research
tool to search the archives. For posting, it's a piece of crap.

The least it could do would be to recognize a properly delimited
signature and strip it when quoting.

Have you written to them about this?

I am not the first one to complain about it.

I can't think of a better web-based usenet client.

First, it isn't a web-based usenet client. Its a web-based interface to
Usenet. The difference is monumental.

And I change terminals so often...

Would it help if I deleted your signature, like this:

[ this space left intentionally blank ]

Actually, it does. It keeps me, and anybody else, that uses true
Newsreader software from having to strip the signature manually. It
wouldn't be quite so bad if Google wouldn't strip the trailing space off
the delimiter so that it becomes <dash><dash><re turninstead of
<dash><dash><sp ace><return>.

I like your web page by the way.

Thanks but it's not mine. It was written and is maintained by Matt
Kruse. I only added it to my signature.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[darwinist]

Randy Webb wrote:

darwinist said the following on 8/5/2006 3:04 AM:

Randy Webb wrote:

darwinist said the following on 8/5/2006 1:35 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
darwinist said the following on 8/4/2006 4:28 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
darwinist said the following on 8/4/2006 3:50 AM:
>so most web-browsers prevent it.
"most"? Name one that doesn't, otherwise, *all* browsers prevent it - in
a default security environment.
Good to know. I said "most" because I didn't know if there were any
major exceptions.
It doesn't take knowing, it only takes a little reasoning to figure it
out. If a browser did allow it, it wouldn't take long for people to
figure it out and stop using the broken outdated piece of crap.
People who knew about these things, sure. A lot of people use shitty
browsers in blissful ignorance of the dangers lurking.
All browsers are susceptible to the dangers lurking. Some just more so
than others.

True, but some of them are "safe enough", free, and open, whereas some
of them are not. Although they're all relatively "free" these days, in
different ways.

I don't see how a browser that is not 100% secure is "safe enough". It
doesn't make a browser safe, it makes it less exploited is all.

So you just don't use javascript?

>>Too bad your posting Agent isn't any better than a browser that did
allow cross-domain scripting.
What's wrong with google groups?
It's easier to tell you what is right with it. It's a great research
tool to search the archives. For posting, it's a piece of crap.

The least it could do would be to recognize a properly delimited
signature and strip it when quoting.

Have you written to them about this?

I am not the first one to complain about it.

I can't think of a better web-based usenet client.

First, it isn't a web-based usenet client. Its a web-based interface to
Usenet. The difference is monumental.

Do you mean because the code that interfaces to the usenet servers runs
in google's rooms (not to mention, presumably, google's own usenet
servers)?

[...]

[Randy Webb]

darwinist said the following on 8/6/2006 3:15 AM:

Randy Webb wrote:

>darwinist said the following on 8/5/2006 3:04 AM:

>>Randy Webb wrote:
darwinist said the following on 8/5/2006 1:35 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
>darwinis t said the following on 8/4/2006 4:28 AM:
>>Randy Webb wrote:
>>>darwinis t said the following on 8/4/2006 3:50 AM:
>>>>so most web-browsers prevent it.
>>>"most" ? Name one that doesn't, otherwise, *all* browsers prevent it - in
>>>a default security environment.
>>Good to know. I said "most" because I didn't know if there were any
>>major exceptions.
>It doesn't take knowing, it only takes a little reasoning to figure it
>out. If a browser did allow it, it wouldn't take long for people to
>figure it out and stop using the broken outdated piece of crap.
People who knew about these things, sure. A lot of people use shitty
browsers in blissful ignorance of the dangers lurking.
All browsers are susceptible to the dangers lurking. Some just more so
than others.
True, but some of them are "safe enough", free, and open, whereas some
of them are not. Although they're all relatively "free" these days, in
different ways.

I don't see how a browser that is not 100% secure is "safe enough". It
doesn't make a browser safe, it makes it less exploited is all.

So you just don't use javascript?

Who said anything about not using javascript? I was referring to
insecure browsers and they all are.

>>>>>Too bad your posting Agent isn't any better than a browser that did
>allow cross-domain scripting.
What's wrong with google groups?
It's easier to tell you what is right with it. It's a great research
tool to search the archives. For posting, it's a piece of crap.

The least it could do would be to recognize a properly delimited
signature and strip it when quoting.
Have you written to them about this?

I am not the first one to complain about it.

>>I can't think of a better web-based usenet client.

First, it isn't a web-based usenet client. Its a web-based interface to
Usenet. The difference is monumental.

Do you mean because the code that interfaces to the usenet servers runs
in google's rooms (not to mention, presumably, google's own usenet
servers)?

I mean the entire interface is junk for any use other than the archives.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/