469,117 Members | 1,708 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,117 developers. It's quick & easy.

need: dhtml menu

I have used DHTMLcentral.com's Coolmenus, but I'd like to find a more
simple one.
Any advice?

Thanks,
Jacob

Jul 23 '05 #1
20 2401
Please take a look at the ones on Dynamic Drive,
http://www.dynamicdrive.com.

Jacob Friis Larsen wrote:
I have used DHTMLcentral.com's Coolmenus, but I'd like to find a more
simple one.
Any advice?

Thanks,
Jacob

Jul 23 '05 #2
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:28:56 GMT, Keyser <ke*********@netscape.net> wrote:
Jacob Friis Larsen wrote:


[snip]
Any advice?


Please take a look at the ones on Dynamic Drive,
http://www.dynamicdrive.com.


Unless the OP is producing a personal website, or an intranet site where
no accessibility rules apply, he shouldn't use the ones on Dynamic Drive.
The scripts there are unsuitable for general Web use. The same applies to
CoolMenus, too.

A better (though still not perfect[1]) set of examples was presented on
the former Netscape DevEdge website. Fortunately, the Internet Archive
(<URL:http://www.archive.org/>) has preserved the site. See
<URL:http://web.archive.org/web/20031203022622/http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/devedge-redesign-js/>
and the "Related Links".

Mike
[1] Browser detection is used in the scripts, something which really
should be avoided.

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
Jul 23 '05 #3
Hello, why do you say that?
I've used some of their menus and like em. What is wrong with them?
Michael Winter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:28:56 GMT, Keyser <ke*********@netscape.net> wrote:
Jacob Friis Larsen wrote:
[snip]
Any advice?


Please take a look at the ones on Dynamic Drive,
http://www.dynamicdrive.com.


Unless the OP is producing a personal website, or an intranet site

where no accessibility rules apply, he shouldn't use the ones on Dynamic Drive. The scripts there are unsuitable for general Web use. The same applies to CoolMenus, too.

A better (though still not perfect[1]) set of examples was presented on the former Netscape DevEdge website. Fortunately, the Internet Archive (<URL:http://www.archive.org/>) has preserved the site. See
<URL:http://web.archive.org/web/20031203022622/http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/devedge-redesign-js/>
and the "Related Links".

Mike
[1] Browser detection is used in the scripts, something which really should be avoided.

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


Jul 23 '05 #4
Japhy wrote:
Michael Winter wrote:
[Don't use Dynamic Drive's scripts]

Hello, why do you say that?
I've used some of their menus and like em. What is wrong with them?


They have been written by incompetent people.
PointedEars

P.S.

A: Top posting
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
--
The 'Any' key is the one labeled 'I/O'.
Jul 23 '05 #5
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote in message news:<38****************@PointedEars.de>...
Japhy wrote:
Michael Winter wrote:
[Don't use Dynamic Drive's scripts]

Hello, why do you say that?
I've used some of their menus and like em. What is wrong with them?


They have been written by incompetent people.
PointedEars

P.S.

A: Top posting
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

hello,

there is another program for javascript menus at
http://www.likno.com/allwebmenusinfo.html.

they give free add-ins for Frontpage, Dreamweaver and NetObjectFusion
if I remember correctly.

Its cheap too.

Here are some examples.

cheers
Jul 23 '05 #6
ralf wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote in message
news:<38****************@PointedEars.de>...
Please don't post attribution novels. Most of the information contained
in your attribution is already contained in the headers of the previous
posting and as such of little value following the discussion while instead
increases distraction.
there is another program for javascript menus at
http://www.likno.com/allwebmenusinfo.html.

they give free add-ins for Frontpage, Dreamweaver and NetObjectFusion
if I remember correctly.

Its cheap too.


And it is FUBAR, too. Can only be designed on Windows, can only be used
with client-side scripting supported and enabled (its documentation
recommends an "automatic redirection" for other users although this would
be unnecessary if the much more reasonable approach of graceful degradation
would have been applied.)
PointedEars
--
Die Freiheit des Ausdrucks ist heute an die Peripherie zeitgenössischer
Musik verbannt worden. Aber wissen Sie, was das Großartige an der ganzen
Sache ist? Eigentlich schert mich das einen Dreck.
-- Robert Plant, Ex-"Led Zeppelin" in FOCUS Nr. 26/2002, S. 159
Jul 23 '05 #7
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
ralf wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote in message
news:<38****************@PointedEars.de>...

Please don't post attribution novels. Most of the information contained
in your attribution is already contained in the headers of the previous
posting and as such of little value following the discussion while instead
increases distraction.


ralf: Please ignore Thomas, we are trying to get him through puberty but
until we manage to survive those hectic days in his life, he continues
to ramble incoherently about attribution novels without having a clue
what he is talking about. Until we can manage to either train him,
educate him, or eradicate him, ignore his babbling about attributions.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Jul 23 '05 #8
JRS: In article <25****************@PointedEars.de>, dated Sun, 3 Apr
2005 11:56:10, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <Po*********@web.de> posted :
ralf wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote in message
news:<38****************@PointedEars.de>...


Please don't post attribution novels. Most of the information contained
in your attribution is already contained in the headers of the previous
posting and as such of little value following the discussion while instead
increases distraction.

Ignore this arrogant but infantile person.

Recent Usenet drafts call for, at a minimum, a fuller attribution than
Thomas Lahn's, and permit one such as mine.

A full attribution has an unimportant cost, and the various information
that it provides is of use in various ways under various circumstances.
Evidently Thomas Lahn has insufficient experience to understand that,
and lacks educability.

One way, of course, is that a dated attribution shows the age of the
article being responded to. If Lahn were to do that, his long-
established and tedious habit of coming here occasionally (while better
of itself than another possibility) and extending long-dead threads
would become beneficially conspicuous to all.

--
© 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.
Jul 23 '05 #9
Dr John Stockton schrieb:
Recent Usenet drafts call for, at a minimum, a fuller attribution
than Thomas Lahn's, and permit one such as mine.


No, they don't. The draft you have been/are referring to for some
time is obsolete since November last year.
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #10
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Dr John Stockton schrieb:

Recent Usenet drafts call for, at a minimum, a fuller attribution
than Thomas Lahn's, and permit one such as mine.

No, they don't. The draft you have been/are referring to for some
time is obsolete since November last year.


Back that up with a reference that supersedes it?

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Jul 23 '05 #11
Randy Webb wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Dr John Stockton schrieb:
Recent Usenet drafts call for, at a minimum, a fuller attribution
than Thomas Lahn's, and permit one such as mine. No, they don't. The draft you have been/are referring to for some
time is obsolete since November last year.


Back that up with a reference that supersedes it?


Indeed, it has been kind of superseded:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt>

Found at
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=search_list&sub_state_id=6& search_button=SEARCH&search_group_acronym=usefor>

Most interesting fact about that new draft is that it now(?) speaks
of an "attribution line" (sic!) and says that this attribution line
MAY contain further information like the precursor's message ID, the
precursor's email address. (However, doing so is contradictory to
the term "attribution line" since Internet/NetNews messages should
not exceed 80 characters per line; accepted exceptions are URIs,
email addresses and log content which should not be word-wrapped
for obvious reasons:

| Further examples:
|
| On comp.foo in <12**@bar.example> on 24 Dec 2001 16:40:20 +0000,
| "Joe D. Bloggs" <jd******@bar.example> wrote:

I think the author of the draft will have to deal with that contraction
in further discussions.)

There is *no* (more a) call for a fuller attribution than mine:

| The attribution SHOULD contain the name and/or the email address of
| the precursor's poster, as in
| Joe D. Bloggs <jd******@foo.example> wrote:
| or
| Helmut Schmidt <he****@bar.example> schrieb:

(Note that "and/or". Since From header email addresses tend to be either
faked (alas!) or spam sinks, they are of little to no use in the
attribution line. They can become useful if there are two posters with
the same (nick)name to distiguish them. However, in my now four years
of regular participation in Usenet I have never encountered such a case,
just-for-fun threads aside.)

That said, Internet drafts still do not permit or forbid anything. They
are *not* a kind of supposed-to-be(come) Internet standard. They merely
propose something to the community that is open to discussion for a
certain time:

| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
| months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
| documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
| as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
| progress."

'nuff said.
HTH & HAND

PointedEars
-- Nach und nach verschwinden in einem größeren Word-Dokument

Das ist ein Programm zum Briefe-Schreiben. Nimm das einfach
zur Kenntnis. Es gibt keine groesseren Word-Dokumente, nur
Dokumente, die zu gross sind fuer Word. -- BGKS Kulms in fch
Jul 23 '05 #12
On 06/04/2005 18:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[snip]
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt>


I think it's worth noting that that document does not, in any way,
support your objections.

Whilst I personally think that, for example, Dr Stockton's
attributions are excessive[1], he is merely including all of the
optional information that is allowed. If that's what he wants to do,
that's his business.

Is it really necessary for you to make an issue out of something that
is surely inconsequential?

[snip]

Mike
[1] I only find the message id useful when searching through the
Google archives; I know where the message came from, so that's not
necessary; and I happen to agree that fake e-mail addresses tend to
make posting them rather pointless.

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
Jul 23 '05 #13
JRS: In article <42***********************@newsread4.arcor-online.net>,
dated Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:54:55, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> posted :
Dr John Stockton schrieb:
Recent Usenet drafts call for, at a minimum, a fuller attribution
than Thomas Lahn's, and permit one such as mine.


No, they don't. The draft you have been/are referring to for some
time is obsolete since November last year.


That is why I wrote "recent" rather than "current". They have expired
after their natural life. But what they indicated remains recent Usenet
thinking, and hence is a far better guide to recent thinking than
something dragged out of an ancient FAQ in some petty local hierarchy.

Thank you for acknowledging that you are fully aware that your demands
do not accord with what has recently been agreed, by competent experts,
as appropriate, and please in future act as a civilised human being.

--
© 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.
Jul 23 '05 #14
Dr John Stockton schrieb:
Thank you for acknowledging that you are fully aware that your
demands do not accord with what has recently been agreed, by
competent experts,


What you still are either unable or unwilling to understand that an
Internet-Draft is *NOT* an agreement of any kind. It is a merely
proposition of one individual that remains to be discussed!
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #15
JRS: In article <42***********************@newsread2.arcor-online.net>,
dated Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:19:51, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> posted :
Dr John Stockton schrieb:
Thank you for acknowledging that you are fully aware that your
demands do not accord with what has recently been agreed, by
competent experts,


What you still are either unable or unwilling to understand that an
Internet-Draft is *NOT* an agreement of any kind. It is a merely
proposition of one individual that remains to be discussed!


You should read it. It is (was) a paper of an Internet Working Group;
CHL there only acting as the Editor of an ongoing discussion. Though if
you knew CHL's Usenet history, you would realise that his considered
opinion alone is more worthy of respect than yours might ever be.

By the way, that which is sometimes referred to as an "attribution line"
is a logical line rather than a physical line; like header lines, it may
be broken at suitable points for human convenience. The breaks should
be at about 72 characters, since attributions should where relevant be
quoted with the material that they label.

There is, therefore, no limit on the number of characters in an
attribution, other than that implied by the sizes of the component items
and a few connecting words.

--
© 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.
Jul 23 '05 #16
Dr John Stockton wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> posted :
Dr John Stockton schrieb:
Thank you for acknowledging that you are fully aware that your
demands do not accord with what has recently been agreed, by
competent experts,
What you still are either unable or unwilling to understand that an
Internet-Draft is *NOT* an agreement of any kind. It is a merely
proposition of one individual that remains to be discussed!


You should read it.


Not again.
It is (was) a paper of an Internet Working Group; CHL there only
acting as the Editor of an ongoing discussion.
I doubt that very much. CHL may be member of UseFor, however the draft
does not say that it has the consent of the other members (posting a
draft that is concensus would be irrelevant then as there is nothing
more to discuss). Instead, in "Status of this memo" he uses the term
"I" quite often and in a way that suggests he writes his own thoughts
about a certain topic.

However, even if you are right, that Internet-Draft it is (still) open
to discussion as this is what it is, and not (I repeat, *NOT*!) -- as
you continuously stated either explicitly or implicitly -- something
that is agreed, and fixed and is therefore to be followed. And since
that Internet-Draft allows both our(?) styles of attribution, I suggest
you stop initiating and enforcing flamewars on me for displaying and
explaining my perfectly valid opinion about this topic.
Though if you knew CHL's Usenet history, you would realise that his
considered opinion alone is more worthy of respect than yours might
ever be.


Rubbish. CHL may be very competent, but in the end, an opinion is
worth only to what extend it is accepted, especially when it comes
to group activities like the creation of RFCs. I am aware of this,
are you? The kind of self-righteousness you display sometimes alas
tells otherwise.
EOD

PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #17
JRS: In article <42***********************@newsread4.arcor-online.net>,
dated Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:14:33, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote: However, even if you are right, that Internet-Draft it is (still) open
to discussion as this is what it is, and not (I repeat, *NOT*!) -- as
you continuously stated either explicitly or implicitly -- something
that is agreed, and fixed and is therefore to be followed. And since
that Internet-Draft allows both our(?) styles of attribution, I suggest
you stop initiating and enforcing flamewars on me for displaying and
explaining my perfectly valid opinion about this topic.


Bullies must always be opposed. It does not necessarily stop them, but
it does discourage others from following their bad example.

That Internet draft clearly considers the style that you demand as being
inadequate, whilst allowing mine.

No-one much minds when others provide inadequate attributions; after
all, apart from the date, attributions are most useful when pages are
saved outside the news environment.

You are ill-mannered in disinterring ancient news discussions and not
providing the date in your attributions; perhaps you do not yet realise
that different newsreaders display in different fashions, so that what
is obvious in one is not necessarily others. You should, in fact, get
yourself a standards-compliant news agent.

It is your habit of persistently demanding that others comply with a
practice that may be agreed for the German hierarchy, but which has not
been agreed for international Usenet and goes against well-informed
expert thinking, that renders you despised and consequently a repeated
target for vituperation.

If you want to be an accepted member of international society, you must
learn to behave in an acceptable manner. Your country, after all, did
so after 1870, and after 1918, and after 1945; and it will probably
somehow manage to do so after the EU referenda are completed.

--
© 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.
Jul 23 '05 #18
Dr John Stockton wrote:
It is your habit of persistently demanding that others comply with a
practice that may be agreed for the German hierarchy, [...]


No, it isn't. Mr. Lahn has been bothering de.comp.lang.javascript
regulars with the same permanent nitpicking complaints for years,
he was often told to use private mail for that, and always ignored
that. It is not at all consensus in de.* (wich is, by the way, not
at all "German", but an international hierarchy in German language)
to behave like he does.

ciao, dhgm
Jul 23 '05 #19
Dietmar Meier wrote:
Dr John Stockton wrote:
It is your habit of persistently demanding that others comply with a
practice that may be agreed for the German hierarchy, [...]


No, it isn't. Mr. Lahn has been bothering de.comp.lang.javascript
regulars with the same permanent nitpicking complaints for years,
he was often told to use private mail for that, and always ignored
that. It is not at all consensus in de.* (wich is, by the way, not
at all "German", but an international hierarchy in German language)
to behave like he does.


What Mr. Meier is generously omitting here is that he has disregarded
Netiquette in the mentioned group for several other reasons many times
which is not less annoying (not only to me), and that there is no
consensus but documents regularly posted to de.* groups for newbies
that recommend for a short attribution which many regulars agree with
this (in de.comp.lang.javascript, too, as the inclined reader will
discover). It is a pity that he now apparently thinks that continuing
an off-topic discussion while supporting a disgusting xenophobia-driven
flame for no valid reasons (if there can ever be any for such; since the
stated document allows for both styles of attribution as I already have
pointed out) wins him any accolades.
PointedEars
--
Bill Gates und Linus Torvalds treffen sich:
Bill: "... der Leichtsinn unbedarfter Anwender im Umgang mit Mailanhängen
ist bei Vireninfektionen häufig die Mutter allen Übels."
Darauf Linus grinsend: "Und Outlook ist der Vater!"
Jul 23 '05 #20
JRS: In article <3b*************@individual.net>, dated Sat, 9 Apr 2005
20:18:08, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Dietmar Meier
<us***************@innoline-systemtechnik.de> posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote:
It is your habit of persistently demanding that others comply with a
practice that may be agreed for the German hierarchy, [...]


No, it isn't. Mr. Lahn has been bothering de.comp.lang.javascript
regulars with the same permanent nitpicking complaints for years,
he was often told to use private mail for that, and always ignored
that. It is not at all consensus in de.* (wich is, by the way, not
at all "German", but an international hierarchy in German language)
to behave like he does.

In English, "German" refers both to the people and the language.
However, those who post to news:de.* seem predominantly to be .de, with
rather few .at, .ch, .li, and anyone else who I've forgotten.

I read the German javascript newsgroup; he seems to me rather better-
behaved there, but I can accept that it is only because he has battered
you all into submission. You yourself, for example, used here an
attribution which is less than the minimum Usefor draft recommendation.
And I can see no article posted there last week with as much as a
Usefor-minimal attribution.

Is there any equivalent in German for "Kindly discontinue your
intestinal retrostalsis" that you could suggest to him there?

--
© 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.
Jul 23 '05 #21

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by Moi | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by RWD | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Alexander Stuckenholz | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by parksch2 | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.