FAQ Topic - How do I modify the current browser window?

[FAQ server]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - How do I modify the current browser window?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a default security environment you are very limited in how much
you can modify the current browser window. You can use
` window.resizeTo ` or ` window.moveTo ` to resize or move a
window respectively, but that is it. Normally you can only
suggest chrome changes in a ` window.open `

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/a...ods/open_0.asp
===
Postings such as this are automatically sent once a day. Their
goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ is at http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html.
The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers.

[VK]

On Mar 18, 1:09 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:

"add the FAQ to the common list"? WTF are you talking about? Or do you
even know?

I mean to add the FAQ (FAQ entry) at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....470812c5e4d3b5
edited or as it is to c.l.j. FAQ list at
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html

What in the name else could it mean?

At http://groups.google.com/group/comp....470812c5e4d3b5
I pointed to a very common misunderstandin g of the underlaying
problem. You said:
"Somewhere in the archives (I can't find it right now) there are
several
threads where I asked about an entry of why the display isn't being
updated. Post a short text and lets see where it goes. I don't have a
problem
adding a new entry."

I posted an open for discussion entry text. You said that there is
some problem in adding it. Now I see you are using it for answers -
but not a single comment followed so far to the FAQ proposal itself.
This way it is reasonable to ask if any problems remained to schedule
for adding the entry - I'm not saying at all to drop everything and to
run to update the page right now.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javas cript message <DN************ ********@gigane ws.com>,
Sat, 17 Mar 2007 05:57:34, Randy Webb <Hi************ @aol.composted:

>Mike Duffy said the following on 3/16/2007 6:39 PM:

>"Evertjan." <ex************ **@interxnl.net wrote in news:Xns98F5AF4
63**********@ 194.109.133.242 :

>>Dr J R Stockton wrote on 15 mrt 2007 in comp.lang.javas cript:

In comp.lang.javas cript message <45************ ***********@new s.sunsite.
dk>, Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:00:02, FAQ server <ja********@dot internet.be>
posted:

FAQ Topic - How do I modify the current browser window?
To an incomer, that might be taken as referring to modifying the
displayed contents.

Actually, you can use "document.write " to rewrite the entire page.
Be careful about what you put into the head and body sections,
because you essentially destroy the original script used to create
what you write.

Which has nothing to do with the FAQ entry.

Agreed. But the Heading of a FAQ entry should indicate, as well as
possible within an appropriate length, what the entry is ABOUT; it
should be written so as to avoid misinterpretati on.

That's particularly necessary when Section 4 contains entries in
"historic" order, rather than grouped by nature of content.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/clpb-faq.txt RAH Prins : c.l.p.b mFAQ;
<URL:ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tsfaqp.zipTimo Salmi's Turbo Pascal FAQ.

[Richard Cornford]

"Randy Webb" <Hi************ @aol.comwrote:

VK said the following on 3/17/2007 5:46 PM:

<snip>

>Right, see the provisional FAQ entry at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....470812c5e4d3b5

With "provisiona l" being the ky word

<snip>

That post is not even "provisiona l". All it does is state that its author
is "proposing to add new FAQ entry", which may be true but is very much
internal to VK's mind. It does not state that anything in the post is
intended for wider consideration as such an entry and it does not employ
the formal mechanism for indicating such (the post contains no <FA****RY>
mark-up). As a result its status is something to be ignored, and it has
been.

Richard.

[VK]

On Mar 18, 1:46 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

That post is not even "provisiona l". All it does is state that its author
is "proposing to add new FAQ entry", which may be true but is very much
internal to VK's mind. It does not state that anything in the post is
intended for wider consideration as such an entry and it does not employ
the formal mechanism for indicating such (the post contains no <FA****RY>
mark-up).

I implore your pardon...

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FAQENTRYin your post lets the FAQ robot
collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."

Now:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....470812c5e4d3b5
Post title:
"<FAQENTRY> I'm changing my page but nothing is changing on the screen.
Why?</FAQENTRY>"

If FAQ editor wants to use my old proposal so to use XML-like formal
markup for FAQ proposals then I just welcome that. I will gladly
reformat the post in a form like:
<FAQENTRY>
<TITLE>
</TITLE>
<BODY>
</BODY>
</FAQENTRY>
If some other formal markup is preferable then just point me to an
instruction page. So far as I remember it was insisted to keep a free-
form format and until stated otherwise this is still in effect.

So far - and I have at least a dozen of rather recent cases - "placing
<FAQENTRYin your post" meant either "mark the post subject" or "mark
the relevant body part" or "mark both post subject and the relevant
body part". It also can be read as "place <FAQENTRYmark er anywhere
in your post" - though I do not recall such interpretation would be
ever used - yet it remains possible. If it is now insisted on only one
strict interpretation of "placing <FAQENTRYin your post" then again
I welcome that but I'm asking then to point to the - obviously newly
made - instruction page.

[Richard Cornford]

Evertjan wrote:

Dr J R Stockton wrote on 15 mrt 2007 in comp.lang.javas cript:

>In comp.lang.javas cript message
<45*********** ************@ne ws.sunsite.
dk>, Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:00:02, FAQ server <ja********@dot internet.be>
posted:

>>>FAQ Topic - How do I modify the current browser window?

To an incomer, that might be taken as referring to modifying the
displayed contents. Something like "... current browser window
properties?" might help. Any better offers?

Current browser window size and/or position on the screen.

The "on the screen" part of that seems redundant, as it is difficult to
see what else "position" may be considered relative to when talking of
windows.

However, the question is about more than the size and position of the
window. It is intended to express someone's desire to modify things such
as the display of menu/button bars, status bars and so on (the 'chrome').
The answer given is than that you cannot expected to be allowed to modify
these things in the normal security environment, but you may be allowed
to alter the window's size and position in some cases (increasingly few
these days, and with less purpose given tabbed browsers and MDI
interfaces on browsers).

Maybe a question along the lines of:-

"How do I modify the current browser window outside of the displayed
document?"

- would suggest the correct level of discrimination (especially given
that the answer is essentially that you cannot expect to be able to).

Richard.

[Richard Cornford]

"VK" <sc**********@y ahoo.comwrote:

On Mar 18, 1:46 pm, Richard Cornford wrote:

>That post is not even "provisiona l". All it does is state that
its author is "proposing to add new FAQ entry", which may be
true but is very much internal to VK's mind. It does not state
that anything in the post is intended for wider consideration
as such an entry and it does not employ the formal mechanism
for indicating such (the post contains no <FA****RYmark-up).

I implore your pardon...

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FA****RYin your post lets the FAQ
robot collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."

Now:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....470812c5e4d3b5
Post title:
"<FA****RY> I'm changing my page but nothing is changing on the
screen. Why?</FA****RY>"

That is a Subject header not a title.

If FAQ editor wants to use my old proposal so to use XML-like
formal markup for FAQ proposals then I just welcome that. I
will gladly reformat the post in a form like:
<FA****RY>
<TITLE>
</TITLE>
<BODY>
</BODY>
</FA****RY>

That is you in a nutshell. Someone points out that you are doing
something wrong and you immediately want to jump to an irrational
extreme.

If some other formal markup is preferable then just point
me to an instruction page.

You have cited part of it above. It is a pity that you have not
understood the section that reads "The <FA****RYshou ld not be used in
posts except in conjunction with a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It
should also not be literally quoted in replies, instead it should be
partly obscured as, e.g. <FAQ**TRYor similar." and how following that
injunction may ease the editor's task.

So far as I remember it was insisted to keep a free-
form format and until stated otherwise this is still
in effect.

So far - and I have at least a dozen of rather recent cases -
"placing <FA****RYin your post" meant either "mark the post
subject" or "mark the relevant body part" or "mark both post
subject and the relevant body part".

Your interpretations are consistently erroneous. "In your post " does not
mean in the Subject header, as that it not in the post, and could not be
reconciled with Usenet's requirment not to assume the avalbility of a
Subject header to the reader. It is also irreconcilable with the request
to not use the literal form in follow-ups combined with the requiremnt to
not change the Subject header of a thread when the subject does not
chagne. Thus the <FA****RYmark-up should never appear in its original
form in a Subject header.

It also can be read as "place <FA****RYmark er anywhere
in your post" - though I do not recall such interpretation
would be ever used - yet it remains possible.

I havw no idea what you are whittering on about now.

If it is now insisted on only one strict interpretation of
"placing <FA****RYin your post" then again I welcome that
but I'm asking then to point to the - obviously newly
made - instruction page.

Bullshit. Nothing has changed. Sections of posts that include suggestions
for the attention of the FAQ editor are, as they always have been, marked
as directed in the FAQ, and such mark-up should not appear anywhere else.
If you have never understood this that is not surprising given your
record, it doesn't mean anyone else is having a problem with it.

If, instead of ignoring them, you would answer the questions you are
asked you might find progressing towards understanding much quicker.

Richard.

[VK]

On Mar 18, 3:31 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

"VK" <schools_r...@y ahoo.comwrote:

On Mar 18, 1:46 pm, Richard Cornford wrote:

That post is not even "provisiona l". All it does is state that
its author is "proposing to add new FAQ entry", which may be
true but is very much internal to VK's mind. It does not state
that anything in the post is intended for wider consideration
as such an entry and it does not employ the formal mechanism

for indicating such (the post contains no <FA****RYmark-up).

I implore your pardon...

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FA****RYin your post lets the FAQ
robot collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."

Now:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....470812c5e4d3b5
Post title:
"<FA****RY> I'm changing my page but nothing is changing on the
screen. Why?</FA****RY>"

That is a Subject header not a title.

Are we feeling especially freaky today?
There are at least three "Native English Speakers" around one baby
(FAQ text) with at least one - JRS - positioning himself nearly as God
and the last keeper of the True English (to my endless amusement btw).
Yet all together they produced the most obscure chunk of a technical
text one could imagine. Moreover and for even more fun they are now
insisting that there is some hidden clarity in this text - one just
need to read it "with a proper mindset".

Again quoting http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FA****RYin your post lets the FAQ robot
collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."

This sentence
1) doesn't specify in what part of the post the marker should be
placed: in the subject line or in the body or reduplicated in both
parts.
2) doesn't specify if the marker should be used as explicitly spelled
thus as a single marker; or does it presume using it tag-like so with
opening <F...tag and closing </F...tag with the relevant content
inside these tags.

No one - just like me - ever knew what a hey did the unknown dislexer
mean while writing it, so anyone was going by her own preferred
reading. By going from the most recent requests back to past:

<FA****RYcorrec tion
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....60c5921b248934
(single <F...mark in the subject line)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....c1a4c1de15426f
<FA****RYtext </FA****RY>
(tag-like <F...usage in the message body)

<FA****RYcorrec tions
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....3a0e91da811ce1
(single <F...mark in the subject line)

<FA****RY4.41 correction
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....dd93894394e6ec
(single <F...mark in the subject line)

$ <FA****RY>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....aa990244bf1226
(single <F...mark in the subject line)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....e27bd0d8696c6a
<FA****RYtext <FA****RY>
(tag-like <F...usage in the message body)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5105828ebfcc5e
<FA****RYtext
(single <F...mark in the message body)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....a3863e3c218aca
<FA****RYtext
(single <F...mark in the message body)

<FA****RY>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....223469afd5aadc
<FA****RYtext
(single <F...mark in the subject line and
single <F...mark in the message body)

I may keep going to the past months to get even more random usages. So
far no one of them was declined for "non-appropriate <FA****RY>
formatting". The first precedent over all these years was created only
now, for my particular FAQ proposal. As interesting as it is by
itself, I don't care to re-post with any reasonable formatting. But
first get my sh** on your bullsh**:

1) For all future potential posters it will be interesting to know if
and why among all possible interpretations of FAQ 5.1 only
<FA****RY>Subje ct</FA****RYis not acceptable (while
<FA****RY>Subje ct is fine). Moreover it is not acceptable by some
weather conditions I guess and not simply as such. See for instance
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....167d13ea90ce98
and the like

2) Even more useful would be to join all language capabilities of
involved people - however limited they are - and try to translate FAQ
5.1 from the current Pigeon English to something not to say perfect
but at least descent. That would eliminate the funny threads like this
one in the future.

Best regards.

[Randy Webb]

VK said the following on 3/18/2007 10:51 AM:

On Mar 18, 3:31 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>"VK" <schools_r...@y ahoo.comwrote:

>>On Mar 18, 1:46 pm, Richard Cornford wrote:
That post is not even "provisiona l". All it does is state that
its author is "proposing to add new FAQ entry", which may be
true but is very much internal to VK's mind. It does not state
that anything in the post is intended for wider consideration
as such an entry and it does not employ the formal mechanism

>>>for indicating such (the post contains no <FA****RYmark-up).
I implore your pardon...
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FA****RYin your post lets the FAQ
robot collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."
Now:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....470812c5e4d3b5
Post title:
"<FA****RY>I' m changing my page but nothing is changing on the
screen. Why?</FA****RY>"

That is a Subject header not a title.

Are we feeling especially freaky today?
There are at least three "Native English Speakers" around one baby
(FAQ text) with at least one - JRS - positioning himself nearly as God
and the last keeper of the True English (to my endless amusement btw).
Yet all together they produced the most obscure chunk of a technical
text one could imagine. Moreover and for even more fun they are now
insisting that there is some hidden clarity in this text - one just
need to read it "with a proper mindset".

Ahem! Who is the "they" you refer to? I know that even in your warped
deranged mind you wouldn't be referring to me as I have never said one
word about the way entries are requested since the long-winded thread
about it was ended. Personally, I don't give a flying mouse's rear end
if you put it in the Subject, Title, Header, Footer, Basement, on the
Moon, in a Signature, in a freaking Email or in the Outhouse. You need
to be careful about what you say who says what or you will find
yourself, once again, challenged to back up your claims of idiocy when
it comes to what I do or don't say/post.

P.S. JRS is too anally retentive to be amusing.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Answer:It destroys the order of the conversation
Question: Why?
Answer: Top-Posting.
Question: Whats the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[VK]

On Mar 19, 7:07 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:

Who is the "they" you refer to?

They! They killed Kennedy, watching each your step, reading each your
post. :-))

I don't give a flying mouse's rear end
if you put it in the Subject, Title, Header, Footer, Basement, on the
Moon, in a Signature, in a freaking Email or in the Outhouse.

You maybe not. Neither the robot as long as it can find
toLowerCase('<F AQ***RY>') in the post. First-time potential posters
do: because with a uncertain ugly spelled procedure in 5.1 they never
can be sure if their proposal is formally correct or not. This thread
- and my overall experience - show that in case if there will be no
lack of critics in this direction.

You need
to be careful about what you say who says what or you will find
yourself, once again, challenged to back up your claims of idiocy when
it comes to what I do or don't say/post.

Your first and last comment to
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....470812c5e4d3b5
so far is:
"It is so full of things that are incoherent that it's difficult to
know where to start."

I'm glad to see that the FAQ proposal formatting is not the thing you
wanted to start with. I may conduct it now from your response here.

[VK]

<FAQENTRYFAQ 5.1 rewording </FAQENTRY>

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
5.1 Why do some posts have <FAQENTRYin them ?

<current>
If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FAQENTRYin your post lets the FAQ robot
collect the messages for easy review and inclusion. A Draft Proposal
for the FAQ is requested and appreciated.

The <FAQENTRYshou ld not be used in posts except in conjunction with
a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It should also not be literally
quoted in replies, instead it should be partly obscured as, e.g.
<FAQ**TRYor similar.
</current>
<proposed>
1) If a poster feels that the question she is answering should be
covered in the FAQ then she must to enclose the relevant part of the
post by <FAQENTRYtag. If the relevant part of the post follows
starting from some point and to the end of the post then it is also
acceptable to mark the beginning only of the relevant part by single
<FAQENTRYtag. The case of tag(s) is not important.
2) If a poster wants to start a new thread with her FAQ request then a
Draft Proposal for the FAQ should contain <FAQENTRYtag at the
beginning of the Subject line. If the body of the post contains any
other auxiliary text besides the Draft Proposal itself then the Draft
Proposal text should be marked same way as at point (1).

This procedure lets the FAQ robot collect the messages for easy review
and inclusion.
The <FAQENTRYshou ld not be used in posts except in conjunction with
a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It should also not be literally
quoted in replies, instead it should be partly obscured as, e.g.
<FAQ**TRYor similar.
</proposed>
--
<FAQENTRY>
<FAQENTRY>
<FAQENTRY
;-)

:-|