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.

[darwinist]

Br**************@gmail.com wrote:

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.

Most browsers prevent cross-site scripting, and for good reason.

Most search engines can be searched with the right url, eg:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=passing texts to different sites
paste this into an address bar or pass it as the url of a new window
and you will see your questions as the first result.

A complete and free working example of searching any number of external
websites inside iframes, can be found at:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Press the "help" button to see examples of how you might create a new
search box.

Use as little or as much of the code as you like.

hth

[BrendanMcPherson]

Most browsers prevent cross-site scripting, and for good reason.

>
Most search engines can be searched with the right url, eg:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=passing texts to different sites
paste this into an address bar or pass it as the url of a new window
and you will see your questions as the first result.

A complete and free working example of searching any number of external
websites inside iframes, can be found at:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Press the "help" button to see examples of how you might create a new
search box.

ThanksI do know that search engines use. words added to their URL.
but the search sites Im using dont.

So i have to use a hidden frame to hold the Variable.

ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS..
how do i get a frame within a window to be able to read the last
characters from the URL,
after the ? question mark.
then how do i add that to its textbox and then transfer that to another
frames textbox
and have the same frame thats submitting it to the other text box, make
the other frame SUBMIT.

thanks for your help anyway

[darwinist]

Br**************@gmail.com wrote:

Most browsers prevent cross-site scripting, and for good reason.

Most search engines can be searched with the right url, eg:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=passing texts to different sites
paste this into an address bar or pass it as the url of a new window
and you will see your questions as the first result.

A complete and free working example of searching any number of external
websites inside iframes, can be found at:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Press the "help" button to see examples of how you might create a new
search box.

ThanksI do know that search engines use. words added to their URL.
but the search sites Im using dont.

So i have to use a hidden frame to hold the Variable.

ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS..
how do i get a frame within a window to be able to read the last
characters from the URL,
after the ? question mark.
then how do i add that to its textbox and then transfer that to another
frames textbox
and have the same frame thats submitting it to the other text box, make
the other frame SUBMIT.

thanks for your help anyway

If these search engines:
a) don't accept forms submitted from your domain, and
b) don't allow search by url

Then they're sending a pretty clear message, or else their own system
is built wrong.

What you are describing is cross-site scripting, and can be a serious
security threat, so most web-browsers prevent it.

hth

---
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html
(A free, open-source, web-based IDE, windowing system, and desktop
environment, in 31kB of html and javascript.)

[Randy Webb]

darwinist said the following on 8/4/2006 3:50 AM:

Br**************@gmail.com wrote:

>>Most browsers prevent cross-site scripting, and for good reason.

Most search engines can be searched with the right url, eg:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=passing texts to different sites
paste this into an address bar or pass it as the url of a new window
and you will see your questions as the first result.

A complete and free working example of searching any number of external
websites inside iframes, can be found at:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Press the "help" button to see examples of how you might create a new
search box.

ThanksI do know that search engines use. words added to their URL.
but the search sites Im using dont.

So i have to use a hidden frame to hold the Variable.

ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS..
how do i get a frame within a window to be able to read the last
characters from the URL,
after the ? question mark.
then how do i add that to its textbox and then transfer that to another
frames textbox
and have the same frame thats submitting it to the other text box, make
the other frame SUBMIT.

thanks for your help anyway

If these search engines:
a) don't accept forms submitted from your domain, and
b) don't allow search by url

Then they're sending a pretty clear message, or else their own system
is built wrong.

Or you are simply submitting them improperly.

What you are describing is cross-site scripting,

Technically, it is cross-domain scripting.

and can be a serious security threat,

True.

so most web-browsers prevent it.

"most"? Name one that doesn't, otherwise, *all* browsers prevent it - in
a default security environment.

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

[darwinist]

Randy Webb wrote:

darwinist said the following on 8/4/2006 3:50 AM:

Br**************@gmail.com wrote:

>Most browsers prevent cross-site scripting, and for good reason.

Most search engines can be searched with the right url, eg:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=passing texts to different sites
paste this into an address bar or pass it as the url of a new window
and you will see your questions as the first result.

A complete and free working example of searching any number of external
websites inside iframes, can be found at:
http://darwinist.googlepages.com/htmldesktop.html

Press the "help" button to see examples of how you might create a new
search box.

ThanksI do know that search engines use. words added to their URL.
but the search sites Im using dont.

So i have to use a hidden frame to hold the Variable.

ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS..
how do i get a frame within a window to be able to read the last
characters from the URL,
after the ? question mark.
then how do i add that to its textbox and then transfer that to another
frames textbox
and have the same frame thats submitting it to the other text box, make
the other frame SUBMIT.

thanks for your help anyway

If these search engines:
a) don't accept forms submitted from your domain, and
b) don't allow search by url

Then they're sending a pretty clear message, or else their own system
is built wrong.

Or you are simply submitting them improperly.

What you are describing is cross-site scripting,

Technically, it is cross-domain scripting.

and can be a serious security threat,

True.

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.

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

[Randy Webb]

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.

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

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

[BrendanMcPherson]

>

If these search engines:
a) don't accept forms submitted from your domain, and
b) don't allow search by url

Then they're sending a pretty clear message, or else their own system
is built wrong.

What you are describing is cross-site scripting, and can be a serious
security threat, so most web-browsers prevent it.

They may as you say "sending a clear message" that they dont want
there systems used in that way. I have written to all the owners of
the sites I will be using and do have their permission.

Since most browsers will not allow cross-site scripting.

Does anyone know how to do this:

send to a new window a variable in the URL
then have that variable appear in the new windows text box and then
after a period
the submit is automatically clicked.

[darwinist]

Br**************@gmail.com wrote:

If these search engines:
a) don't accept forms submitted from your domain, and
b) don't allow search by url

Then they're sending a pretty clear message, or else their own system
is built wrong.

What you are describing is cross-site scripting, and can be a serious
security threat, so most web-browsers prevent it.

They may as you say "sending a clear message" that they dont want
there systems used in that way. I have written to all the owners of
the sites I will be using and do have their permission.

Since most browsers will not allow cross-site scripting.

Does anyone know how to do this:

send to a new window a variable in the URL
then have that variable appear in the new windows text box and then
after a period
the submit is automatically clicked.

If you have their explicit permission, then they need to know it's not
technically possible for security reasons, although a very small change
on their part could make it so (eg the url interpretation).

It's up to them if they let you search their website. If it's only a
small technical problem standing in the way, rather than their
intentions, then they may be happy to fix it.

hth

[darwinist]

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.

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

What's wrong with google groups?

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

[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.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup
weeklyJavascript 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:
>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.

>>>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><returninstead of
<dash><dash><space><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.javascript 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:
>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?

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.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/