Loading URL contents into a variable

[Scott Orsburn]

Is there a way to load the contents returned from a URL into a
JavaScript variable? Suppose a user picks an option from a popup list.
I want to pass that choice in a URL to a script on a server that runs a
query on a database. The value is returned from the URL and is
populated in a JavaScript variable. Something like:

function LookupFunc(TestString)
{
TheResult = script.loadValueFrom =
"http://dbserver/LookupScript.php?TheValue=" + TestString;

alert(TheResult);
}

The goal is that I can lookup values "on the fly" rather than trying to
accommodate the choices before hand.
__
Scott Orsburn
Kaomso
www.kaomso.com

I'm not clever enough to think of a cool signature.

[Michael Winter]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:47:36 -0500, Scott Orsburn
<scottso_no@spam_maclaunch.com> wrote:

Is there a way to load the contents returned from a URL into a
JavaScript variable?
See the FAQ (<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/>).

[snip]
__

The convention on Usenet is that signatures begin dash-dash-space (-- ).
This helps news readers identify and format signatures, and remove them
automatically when a user selects "Reply".

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Martin Honnen]

Scott Orsburn wrote:

Is there a way to load the contents returned from a URL into a
JavaScript variable? Suppose a user picks an option from a popup list.
I want to pass that choice in a URL to a script on a server that runs a
query on a database. The value is returned from the URL and is
populated in a JavaScript variable. Something like:

function LookupFunc(TestString)
{
TheResult = script.loadValueFrom =
"http://dbserver/LookupScript.php?TheValue=" + TestString;
alert(TheResult);
}

The goal is that I can lookup values "on the fly" rather than trying to
accommodate the choices before hand.

With a growing range of browsers (IE5+/Win, Netscape 6/7, Mozilla,
Firefox, Safari 1.2, Opera 7.6x when it comes out) you can do that,
however the interfaces are geared towards sending and receiving XML. And
of course it might make sense to load asynchronously so you will need an
event handler set up to handle the received data.
See
http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/.../17226/fid/616
and
http://jibbering.com/2002/4/httprequest.html

For IE/Win there is also the download behaviour as described here:
http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/...d/1268/fid/126

--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/

[Scott Orsburn]

Mike,

thank you for your unsolicited advise about Usenet convention. If I
might offer some of my own? Referring a poster to a vague URL is not
helpful. Pointing to a relevant document from a site is helpful. If I
wanted a generic JavaScript resource site I can find those on my own.
Michael Winter wrote:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:47:36 -0500, Scott Orsburn
<scottso_no@spam_maclaunch.com> wrote:

Is there a way to load the contents returned from a URL into a
JavaScript variable?

See the FAQ (<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/>).

[snip]

__

The convention on Usenet is that signatures begin dash-dash-space (--
). This helps news readers identify and format signatures, and remove
them automatically when a user selects "Reply".

[snip]

Mike

[Scott Orsburn]

My apologies. This was supposed to be in repsonse to Michael Winter's post.

Martin, the links you provided were the sort of thing I was looking
for. This gives me a good starting point. Thank you.

--
Scott Orsburn
Kaomso
www.kaomso.com
Scott Orsburn wrote:

Mike,

thank you for your unsolicited advise about Usenet convention. If I
might offer some of my own? Referring a poster to a vague URL is not
helpful. Pointing to a relevant document from a site is helpful. If
I wanted a generic JavaScript resource site I can find those on my own.

[Michael Winter]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:07:47 -0500, Scott Orsburn
<scottso_no@spam_maclaunch.com> wrote:

thank you for your unsolicited advise about Usenet convention.
You're welcome.

How about some more: please don't top-post to this group.
If I might offer some of my own? Referring a poster to a vague URL is
not helpful.
The idea is to refer them to a document that might be useful, not only
now, but in the future too. My apologies if you don't appreciate that,
however if you're too lazy (or simply unwilling) to spend the two minutes
(maximum) necessary to read the list of questions in the Quick Answers
section, fair enough, but frankly that isn't my concern.
Pointing to a relevant document from a site is helpful.
So I fail to see the problem.
If I wanted a generic JavaScript resource site I can find those on my
own.

Most of them are full of bad advice and code that hasn't undergone any
form of review. If that's what you want, be my guest.

[snip]

Hmmm. I must be stressed today.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Scott Orsburn]

Michael (Usenet police),

does this message conform?

The idea is to refer them to a document that might be useful, not
only now, but in the future too. My apologies if you don't appreciate
that, however if you're too lazy (or simply unwilling) to spend the
two minutes (maximum) necessary to read the list of questions in the
Quick Answers section, fair enough, but frankly that isn't my concern.

Lazy huh? I had a pretty specific question. You gave a pretty general
site. There's no need to post if you don't have an answer. I tend to
be pretty resourceful and don't need a sermon from you.
Most of them are full of bad advice and code that hasn't undergone
any form of review. If that's what you want, be my guest.

Thanks for that heads up!

I'll wait for your reply to this, then my discussion with you is done as
this does not pertain to my question at all.
--
Scott Orsburn
Kaomso
www.kaomso.com

I'm not clever enought to think of a cool signature.

[Andrew Thompson]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:33:13 -0500, Scott Orsburn wrote:

does this message conform?

Conform to the theory that you are a dolt for not reading the
entirety of the resource to which he linked?

Yes.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
http://www.LensEscapes.com/ Images that escape the mundane

[Michael Winter]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:33:13 -0500, Scott Orsburn
<scottso_no@spam_maclaunch.com> wrote:

Michael (Usenet police),
Perhaps you don't realise that some take offense to people that don't
follow convention. Personally, I couldn't care less. It's frustrating when
people don't listen (and I thank you for correcting both previous posts),
but I'll live.

The advice was for your benefit. You seem to have trouble accepting the
fact that I *am* trying to help you.

The idea is to refer them to a document that might be useful, not only
now, but in the future too. My apologies if you don't appreciate that,
however if you're too lazy (or simply unwilling) to spend the two
minutes (maximum) necessary to read the list of questions in the Quick
Answers section, fair enough, but frankly that isn't my concern.

Lazy huh?

It would appear so.
I had a pretty specific question.
That you did.
You gave a pretty general site. There's no need to post if you don't
have an answer.
Why post an answer when I can refer to a site that does? That's the point
of the FAQ, and the reason why you should attempt to find and read one
before posting to a group. It would have made your post, and this
argument, completely unnecessary.
I tend to be pretty resourceful and don't need a sermon from you.
So again, I question why there is this problem.

[snip]
I'll wait for your reply to this, then my discussion with you is done as
this does not pertain to my question at all.

Good. I hate being drawn into flame wars.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Scott Orsburn]

Conform to the theory that you are a dolt for not reading the
entirety of the resource to which he linked?

Great so I finish up with Mike, now I get to start with you.

Andrew, let me be perfectly plain here. Mike knew where the answer was
and pointed me to a high-level site containing it. This did not address
the question I had. If he felt the need to repsond to my post then what
he should have done is pointed me to the actual page--not the site. His
reply should have been this:

http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_34

Not:

http://jibbering.com/faq/

The former is helpful. The latter is not. Mike's line of thinking
would point me to an entire JavaScript manual even if all I were looking
for were the syntax for accessing a form value. Again, this sort of
advise can go without saying. If you have a link to an example, then
post. If you have a link to a site, then don't. We can all get that far.

You, like Mike don't need to post just to post. It's okay.
--
Scott Orsburn
Kaomso
www.kaomso.com

I'm not clever enought to think of a cool signature.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <co********@enews4.newsguy.com>, dated Wed, 24 Nov 2004
08:47:36, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Scott Orsburn <scottso_no@s
pam_maclaunch.com> posted :

Is there a way to load the contents returned from a URL into a
JavaScript variable? Suppose a user picks an option from a popup list.
I want to pass that choice in a URL to a script on a server that runs a
query on a database. The value is returned from the URL and is
populated in a JavaScript variable. Something like:

function LookupFunc(TestString)
{
TheResult = script.loadValueFrom =
"http://dbserver/LookupScript.php?TheValue=" + TestString;

alert(TheResult);
}

The goal is that I can lookup values "on the fly" rather than trying to
accommodate the choices before hand.

If you wish to ask questions in this newsgroup *and* like the responses,
you need to look at the *whole* of the regularly-posted newsgroup FAQ
first; you need to honour the agreed Usenet conventions, as there
described and linked, and, for each question, you need to consider
whether the answer is already in the newsgroup FAQ. Otherwise, you will
find the experience unsatisfactory.

You also need to compose your question with care; many of those here do
not have English as their native language and, of them, many have been
taught it better than you or I have. You have, in particular, mingled
the expression of your need with the way that you think that it can be
satisfied.

Your need is, it seems, for a user action to cause your code to question
a server and then for your code to be able to access its answer.

FAQ 4.34 appears to answer the first part of that; but it is not of
itself clear as to how the response received can be accessed by the
script on the questioning page. Probably the link shows that.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[Scott Orsburn]

If you wish to ask questions in this newsgroup *and* like the responses,
you need to look at the *whole* of the regularly-posted newsgroup FAQ
first; you need to honour the agreed Usenet conventions, as there
described and linked, and, for each question, you need to consider
whether the answer is already in the newsgroup FAQ. Otherwise, you will
find the experience unsatisfactory.

It seems that I am the odd man out here. I tried tried to participate
in the newsgroup with a straight forward question and got more responses
concerning form and practices of Usenet than the question I posed. I
suppose that failure to study the guidlines of how to post a message
warrants a rebuffing from other posters. I understand now.

Before I posted this message I did some quick searching to find the
documents that describe the Usenet conventions so that in the future I
will be sure not to offend anyone and to be sure to do my homework
before posting a question. The search was not so productive. It would
seem that this dicussion network is really a subculture of the
Internet. Please point me to a FAQ addressing these issues if I am wrong.

I failed to discover a FAQ on a site called jibbering.com pertaining to
JavaScript on my own, so chances are I have not found a FAQ for how to
post messages to a discussion group. Your help is appreciated.

--
Scott Orsburn
www.kaomso.com
scottso_no@spam_maclaunch.com

[Michael Winter]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:03:06 -0500, Scott Orsburn
<scottso_no@spam_maclaunch.com> wrote:

[snip]

Please point me to a FAQ addressing [posting] issues [...]

RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines (*LONG*)
<URL:http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html>

comp.lang.javascript FAQ, sections 2.1-5
<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_1>

comp.lang.javascript FAQ Notes - Posting Questions and Replies to
comp.lang.javascript, and linked resources
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/pots1.html>
Be warned that RFC 1855 covers many issues. The most appropriate sections
for Usenet (NetNews in the document) are 3.1.1 - General Guidelines for
mailing lists and NetNews and 3.1.3 - NetNews Guidelines. However, also
read 2.1.1 - [User Guidelines] For mail.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <co*********@enews4.newsguy.com>, dated Mon, 29 Nov
2004 15:03:06, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Scott Orsburn
<scottso_no@spam_maclaunch.com> posted :

Please configure an adequately informative attribution, as is the Usenet
custom.

If you wish to ask questions in this newsgroup *and* like the responses,
you need to look at the *whole* of the regularly-posted newsgroup FAQ
first; you need to honour the agreed Usenet conventions, as there
described and linked, and, for each question, you need to consider
whether the answer is already in the newsgroup FAQ. Otherwise, you will
find the experience unsatisfactory.

It seems that I am the odd man out here. I tried tried to participate
in the newsgroup with a straight forward question and got more responses
concerning form and practices of Usenet than the question I posed. I
suppose that failure to study the guidlines of how to post a message
warrants a rebuffing from other posters. I understand now.

Correct.
Before I posted this message I did some quick searching to find the
documents that describe the Usenet conventions so that in the future I
will be sure not to offend anyone and to be sure to do my homework
before posting a question. The search was not so productive. It would
seem that this dicussion network is really a subculture of the
Internet. Please point me to a FAQ addressing these issues if I am wrong.

I failed to discover a FAQ on a site called jibbering.com pertaining to
JavaScript on my own, so chances are I have not found a FAQ for how to
post messages to a discussion group. Your help is appreciated.

AIUI, jibbering is not 100% reliable.

But you were referred to the regularly-posted newsgroup FAQ. The
posting of that is reliable, currently; it appears, in two parts, on Mon
Wed Fri, so you should have seen it when you perused the newsgroup
before posting to it. It contains the meat, but not the decoration, of
what is at jibbering.

It contains guidance on posting to this newsgroup, and links to accepted
Usenet-wide authorities.

It does not, admittedly, inform you that Michael Winter's advice should
always be considered carefully and /in toto/. That you are expected to
deduce for yourself.

As it is, you are now forever, or at least until we forget, noted as
being a misfit.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[Scott Orsburn]

>

Please configure an adequately informative attribution, as is the Usenet
custom.

John, I'm not sure what you're responding to here.

It seems that I am the odd man out here. I tried tried to participate
in the newsgroup with a straight forward question and got more responses
concerning form and practices of Usenet than the question I posed. I
suppose that failure to study the guidlines of how to post a message
warrants a rebuffing from other posters. I understand now.

Correct.

Thanks.
AIUI, jibbering is not 100% reliable.
Interesting note. Those who have cited it pass it as the authoritative
FAQ for this group. I have not yet come to the same conclusion as you
but I will be looking. Thanks again.
But you were referred to the regularly-posted newsgroup FAQ. The
posting of that is reliable, currently; it appears, in two parts, on Mon
Wed Fri, so you should have seen it when you perused the newsgroup
before posting to it. It contains the meat, but not the decoration, of
what is at jibbering.

Another failing on my part. Posting to Usenet has the potential to be
more trouble than its worth with all the preliminary steps involved
with being a responsible poster. This thread has most definately taught
me that its form, then substance that counts.
As it is, you are now forever, or at least until we forget, noted as
being a misfit.

All right then. I'm not sure why you included this. My previous post
has conceded to being green (new) with regard to Usenet. I never
estimated the importance placed on the way a post is formed or the
content of it. But if such is the case, I guess I'm a misfit.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <co*********@enews2.newsguy.com>, dated Tue, 30 Nov
2004 16:20:44, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Scott Orsburn
<scottso_no@spam_maclaunch.com> posted :

Please configure an adequately informative attribution, as is the Usenet
custom.

John, I'm not sure what you're responding to here.

To the article cited in the attribution at the head of your previous
article, and to its own lack of attribution. It is the article that you
quoted. If you have not yet realised what an attribution is, then look
for an example at the first three lines of the body of this article -
and ignore anything that you may see written by the subject by the
infantile Lahn.

You should have noticed that having an attribution giving at least
author's name & E-address is standard practice; current UseFor expert
thinking on the matter can be seen as work-in-progress :-
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/...-useage-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/...article-13.txt .

It seems that I am the odd man out here. I tried tried to participate
in the newsgroup with a straight forward question and got more responses
concerning form and practices of Usenet than the question I posed. I
suppose that failure to study the guidlines of how to post a message
warrants a rebuffing from other posters. I understand now.

Correct.

Thanks.

AIUI, jibbering is not 100% reliable.

Interesting note. Those who have cited it pass it as the authoritative
FAQ for this group. I have not yet come to the same conclusion as you
but I will be looking. Thanks again.

That means that jibbering the machine is not 100% reliable; I have heard
that it does not always respond to requests to show pages. The page in
question is an HTML version of the authoritative FAQ for this group; the
authoritative version is the one posted in the group every week. If I
had meant that the cited document is not reliable, I would have referred
to the document itself.

You do not declare yourself as coming from a non-English-using
background; therefore, you are expected to be able to understand the
English language, even if you are American.

But you were referred to the regularly-posted newsgroup FAQ. The
posting of that is reliable, currently; it appears, in two parts, on Mon
Wed Fri, so you should have seen it when you perused the newsgroup
before posting to it. It contains the meat, but not the decoration, of
what is at jibbering.

Another failing on my part. Posting to Usenet has the potential to be
more trouble than its worth with all the preliminary steps involved
with being a responsible poster. This thread has most definately taught
me that its form, then substance that counts.

When one join a discussion area of any form whatsoever - a Usenet
newsgroup, a Web forum, a bar or tavern, a Church meeting, etc., it is
both courteous and prudent to read/listen for a while before doing
anything more. That is particularly easy for a newsgroup, since
previous articles are readily available. In this group, one only has to
reach back at most three days to see a part of the FAQ.

As it is, you are now forever, or at least until we forget, noted as
being a misfit.

All right then. I'm not sure why you included this.

Because you need to realise that it is not your original errors, but
your petulant refusal to accept and heed mild correction, that leads to
your receiving the responses that you have subsequently received. If
you want to be helped by the knowledgeable, you need to conform with the
agreed, efficient, practices.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

[Scott Orsburn]

Because you need to realise that it is not your original errors, but
your petulant refusal to accept and heed mild correction, that leads to
your receiving the responses that you have subsequently received. If
you want to be helped by the knowledgeable, you need to conform with the
agreed, efficient, practices.

John, in looking over Mike's replies to other posters, the phrasing and
comments used in his posts are abrasive. For example:

"Wow! You've now saved a whopping six characters from your abbreviations."
"This won't work for two very obvious reasons."
"As a parting comment, I'm afraid to say I think that script is horrific."
"As I said in your previous thread, this is nonsense."
"This is nonsense, as is the similar start later in your code."
"Was a 3KB+ post really necessary just to say that?"

The context these quotes where taken from is irrelevant. The same point
could have been made with better phrasing or best left unsaid at all.

Mike comes across as very knowledgable, but his interpersonal skills
seem to be completely missing. If tact where something Mike had
demonstrated this whole thread could have been avoided. I am more than
willing to take advise and recommendations from people. I do it
regularly. But when confronted with the accusatory and curt tone of his
reply, I will naturally respond defensively.

Additionally, you seem to have had some sort of difficulty reading my
posts. My original post was pretty concise and supported with an
example that should have helped those who may not have understood my
question. If your confusion comes from the responses, most of them are
coming from people who insist on pointing out what an idiot I am. So,
there is little value for anyone to derive from them anyway.

Unfortuantely, this thread has been dragged out even longer with your
posts since you have presented very little if any helpful information.
Certainly none pertaining to my original question.
--
Scott Orsburn

[Michael Winter]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:45:05 -0500, Scott Orsburn
<scottso_no@spam_maclaunch.com> wrote:

[snip]

John, in looking over Mike's replies to other posters, the phrasing and
comments used in his posts are abrasive.

So now you're investigating my past activities in this group, hmmm?

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Richard Cornford]

Scott Orsburn wrote:
<snip>

... . If your confusion comes from the responses, most
of them are coming from people who insist on pointing out
what an idiot I am.

<snip>

To be honest, when I read your first reply in this thread I thought
'what and idiot'. I don't tend to jump to long term conclusions based on
one post, but two or three responses later and I decided you where
crying out for inclusion in my George Hester filter. Posting a lame
personal attack on Michael Winter (of all people) pretty much confirmed
that conclusion.

Still, they are your feet so feel free to keep shooting at them.

Richard.

[Scott Orsburn]

All right folks. I suppose I responded defensively but the replies I've
received are examples of why. I really hope that your interaction with
people in person is much better than it is here. You seem to want to
help, but can't resist the urge to put in some jabs while you're at it.

And yes Mike, the tone you have taken with other posters is directly
related to how well your comments were received.

You may all have the last word.
--
Scott Orsburn

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <co*********@enews2.newsguy.com>, dated Wed, 1 Dec 2004
15:45:05, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Scott Orsburn <scottso_no@s
pam_maclaunch.com> posted :

Additionally, you seem to have had some sort of difficulty reading my
posts. My original post was pretty concise and supported with an
example that should have helped those who may not have understood my
question. If your confusion comes from the responses, most of them are
coming from people who insist on pointing out what an idiot I am. So,
there is little value for anyone to derive from them anyway.

Your original post was of no interest to me; I was responding to your
juvenile responses to polite indications about conformance to accepted
News practices.

If you wish to be helped, it is non-constructive to show yourself as one
who is too arrogant to take sound advice from the knowledgeable.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.