Friends, your opinions and advice, please:
I have a very simple JavaScript image-swap which works on my end but
when uploaded to my host at http://buildit.sitesell.com/sunnyside.html
does not work.
To rule out all possible factors, I made up a dummy page for an
index.html to upload, along the lines of <html><head><title></title></
head><body></body></html>.; the image-swap itself is your basic <img
src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
All file paths are correct; all image files have been uploaded; the
JavaScript itself, such as it is, is also correct.
That is to say, all very simple.
And still it doesn't work.
Now I contacted their customer/tech support, and only after three days
with the third rep was it acknowledged that I had a problem which they
ought to look into (at first they did the usual tech support thing
and, upon seeing the keyword "JavaScript" immediately disavowed any
responsibility for my situation, as if I was calling about third-party
software or something like that).
After another three days of not receiving my files that they asked me
to send, which I did via Yahoo!, they took a whole week to investigate
the matter
This is what I was told, in relevant part:
The issue is with how the absolute and relative links are
used, and our programmers have said (and tested) that
if you...
1. Upload a dummy file with all the images referenced
separately, i.e. in separate <img src ="..."tags
2. Make all the links absolute before uploading
....then what you want to achieve will be successful on
the live page.
Can someone parse that for me, please? I don't understand what's
being asked of me, exactly.
Am I really being asked to use absolute path-names? Couldn't that
prove very messy down the road should I decide to move files/pages
around??
And, moreover, how am I supposed to use separate <imgtags for the
two image files that are to be used for an image-swap?? How would the
browser know to link the two in the manner of an image-swap if
"distributed" over separate <imgtags??
And is it perhaps somehow too much for me to expect my webpages to
upload "as is" -- or is it not unusual for a webhost to have
particular requirements about how such things need to be?? SBI! is my
first webhost so I really don't know what industry standards would be.
Jun 27 '08
112  4554 
On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:23:27 -0700 (PDT), Prisoner at War
<pr*************@yahoo.comwrote:
>Yeah, and what was that "simple beginner's error," exactly?
<img src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
You're confusing URI resources like src with JavaScript(sic) event
handlers like onmouseover & onmouseout
On May 12, 6:34 pm, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.comwrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:23:27 -0700 (PDT), Prisoner at War
<prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
Yeah, and what was that "simple beginner's error," exactly?
<img src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
You're confusing URI resources like src with JavaScript(sic) event
handlers like onmouseover & onmouseout
Yes, I'm sorry I'm not more articulate with the technical terms
involved...but that's not what caused the image-swap to not work when
their server served it to my web browser, even though the same exact
code does work when my hard drive serves it to the same web browser.
It turns out that they needed an absolute file path for the first src
attribute for some reason ("it's just how SBI! works" -- even though
it took them two weeks to find that out for themselves!)...oddly
enough, the other src attributes can remain in relative format.
Looking forward, I guess this is a good lesson in itself, too; to ask
of my next webhost very detailed questions about what they can do and
how they would do it...all along I'm just assuming that what works on
my end should seamless work on theirs (that is, no distinction between
being sent up by my hard drive or by their server, save for speed due
to internet connections)....
On May 12, 6:33 pm, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.comwrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:53:24 -0700 (PDT), Prisoner at War
<prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
I've announced several times now that their tech
support has finally resolved the problem: they need the first scr
attribute in the <imgof an image-swap to be in *absolute* file path
format!!
Announce it again, it'll still be wrong.
*What* is "wrong"??? *What*, exactly???
The image-swap now works when served through the web from their
servers to my browser -- *after* they set the first src attribute to
absolute path format (while curiously leaving the other two
relative!).
That is _not_ the problem, The amount of perverse mis-configuration
they'd have to do to achieve this is beyond a host dumb enough to get
involved in fixing users' content for them.
What "perverse misconfiguration" are you talking about???
All they did was set the first src attribute to absolute path format!
The issue is why any webhost would need to do that.
What is there to "fix"??
Tell me where the code is wrong.
You keep making these groundless accusations like Jerry Stuckle, and
yet just like him you have yet to point out exactly what was "wrong"
with my "code" -- when it's clearly not even a coding issue!
Good God, is there a semanticist in the house?? Talk about three men
in a dark room with an elephant....
Prisoner at War wrote:
On May 12, 4:23 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
Well as for ServerGrade. Just try them out. Have a look through the
site if you have not done so already though.
But as for learning you might not be able to learn much from the web
host because as Jerry said it is not the Job of the host to teach you
this stuff.
Jerry has no idea what he's talking about. I wasn't asking for help
with JavaScript; I was asking why they didn't seem to support
JavaScript since the code worked on my end but not on theirs. Big
difference, but for some reason the distinction remains lost on him.
But you don't even understand baysic things like how to size images
properly for the web which is baysic stuff.
>
As for my "learning with SBI!" comment, learning indeed is what SBI!
purports to do; as a matter of fact, one of their sales pages lists
colleges and universities using them for e-commerce instruction,
fairly famous places like the University of Arizona and even The
Citadel!
You need to learn from sites such ashttp://www.htmldog.com
or even better buy a book.
But you can also read the large amount of stuff the is on sites such
ashttp://www.webpagesthatsuck.com
LOL, yeah, I came across that last one! But thanks for the refs; yes,
I was hoping that SBI! would be a "centralized place" where I could
learn this stuff (not necessarily "all" of it but a lot, certainly --
and I suppose I have, though I should have liked more), but it looks
like it's back to just googling the web and tickling the library
books!
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
This whole thread is either somebody's desire to waste developer's
time, or an attempt to discredit the host. This lil tangent has gone
too far. I thought this was a group devoted to JavaScript.
"shawn" <ja*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:96**********************************@m3g2000h sc.googlegroups.com...
This whole thread is either somebody's desire to waste developer's
time, or an attempt to discredit the host. This lil tangent has gone
too far. I thought this was a group devoted to JavaScript.
Which group do you mean?
You have posted to FIVE groups.
--
Andrew
UK Residents:
STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff"
Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the
very poorest tell your friends about this petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/
On May 10, 1:02 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
>
...but actually, here's the
complete webpage I'm talking about, right here, in under 10 lines of
ASCII:
<html>
<head>
<title>test page</title>
</head>
<body>
<img name="image" id="image" src=pic1.gif"
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif;'"
onMouseOut="document.getElementById('image').src=' pic1.gif;'" />
</body>
</html>
Not sure if you have resolved this, but I initially saw that you are
missing a double-quote...
This... src=pic1.gif"
.... should be this... src="pic1.gif"
On May 13, 4:45 pm, Disco Octopus <di...@discooctopus.comwrote:
On May 10, 1:02 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
...but actually, here's the
complete webpage I'm talking about, right here, in under 10 lines of
ASCII:
<html>
<head>
<title>test page</title>
</head>
<body>
<img name="image" id="image" src=pic1.gif"
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif;'"
onMouseOut="document.getElementById('image').src=' pic1.gif;'" />
</body>
</html>
Not sure if you have resolved this, but I initially saw that you are
missing a double-quote...
This... src=pic1.gif"
... should be this... src="pic1.gif"
.... and...
you file name for the images end with a ";" when they shouldn't.
....this...
<img name="image" id="image" src=pic1.gif"
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif;'"
onMouseOut="document.getElementById('image').src=' pic1.gif;'" />
....should be this...
<img name="image" id="image" src="pic1.gif"
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif'"
onMouseOut="document.getElementById('image').src=' pic1.gif'" />
On 12 May, 21:33, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
Please explain.
The simplest explanation, and this is backed up by long empirical
studies conducted by _anyone_ who has supported users, is that what
you're describing to us doesn't bear too much relation to the actual
reality. That's the first lesson of supporting users, and just one
reason why you don't touch such issues with a bargepole unless you can
get your _own_ hands on the same code, in the same context.
In your last reply to me you claimed that setting an onmouseover event
to a URL for an image somehow "works", so long as it's on your
machine, or it's on the host's (and uses an absolute path). Despite
this clearly _not_ being what your example does. Now if this _is_
true, that's news to the W3C: this stuff just doesn't work quite that
way. So my only conclusion has to be that there's some vagueness
creeping in between the code that's failing to work, and the code
you're reporting to us for diagnosis. No one is "wrong" here, it's
just like trying to work at too long range, wearing thick gloves and
dark glasses.
This is also why most posters here insist on URLs, rather than posted
fragments.
On 12 May, 20:27, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
Hey, I've enjoyed "Dot Com" and "E-Dreams"
And on the web -- this much I've learned from SBI!
Wasn't it something like "Cronin's 14th Law of Dotcom" that you should
never trust a dot-com company that uses exclamation marks in their
company name?
On 13 May, 00:09, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
Indeed -- but my antecedent there, "that," was not referring to
JavaScript but to the fact that something which displays right in my
browser when on my hard drive *doesn't* when on their server.
You know what that's caused by? Case issues in filenames. Sometimes "
" space characters in filenames not being encoded correctly in URLs
(although browsers usually compensate for that).
Your desktop is almost certainly Windows (case-insensitive filenames).
Your web server filesystem is almost certainly Unix (case-sensitive
filenames). Your web server is probably (unless they deliberately
change this) also case-sensitive in URLs.
So when you test with a local filename that has the wrong case, your
Windows system doesn't care and it all works.
You upload this to the server (now case-sensitive) and it fails.
You talk to tech support, and you both talk yourself into this cargo-
cult that it's using an absolute path that's the trick. You get this
absolute path by browsing to the directory with the files in (through
the web server), seeing a list of file URLs (generated by the server,
so the case is correct) and you then copy and paste one of these.
Two things have happened: you've switched from relative to absolute
(obvious, but unimportant) and you've also corrected the case of the
filename in the URL (easily ignored but crucial). _That's_ why "it
started working when you went to absolute paths".
Disco Octopus wrote:
On May 13, 4:45 pm, Disco Octopus <di...@discooctopus.comwrote:
>On May 10, 1:02 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
you file name for the images end with a ";" when they shouldn't.
...this...
<img name="image" id="image" src=pic1.gif"
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif;'"
onMouseOut="document.getElementById('image').src=' pic1.gif;'" />
...should be this...
<img name="image" id="image" src="pic1.gif"
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif'"
onMouseOut="document.getElementById('image').src=' pic1.gif'" />
Correct, the ';' can go at the *end* of a JavaScript statement so
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif';"
would also be valid. NOTE location of ';' but as I mentioned elsewhere
in the thread, very clumsy to use whole JavaScript statements inline,
better to create a function AND preload the images.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
shawn wrote:
This whole thread is either somebody's desire to waste developer's
time, or an attempt to discredit the host. This lil tangent has gone
too far. I thought this was a group devoted to JavaScript.
Yea, unfortunately, the idiot crossposted to a bunch of other irrelevant
newsgroups.
With everything else in the thread - enough said.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
On May 13, 1:45 am, Disco Octopus <di...@discooctopus.comwrote:
>
Not sure if you have resolved this, but I initially saw that you are
missing a double-quote...
This... src=pic1.gif"
... should be this... src="pic1.gif"
Thanks very much; yes, I made typos there in my post but the actual
code that had been used was perfectly fine; it turns out that my
webhost's CMS has a bug that requires the first src attribute to be in
absolute file path name format -- but only when involved in an image-
swap! All other src attributes, including the others involved in an
image-swap, may bear relative paths.
I'm most likely going to cancel my subscription...little oddities like
this are annoying (it's taken two weeks to diagnose this) and make me
wonder what else might lay in wait!
On May 13, 1:56 am, Disco Octopus <di...@discooctopus.comwrote:
>
... and...
you file name for the images end with a ";" when they shouldn't.
...this...
<img name="image" id="image" src=pic1.gif"
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif;'"
onMouseOut="document.getElementById('image').src=' pic1.gif;'" />
...should be this...
<img name="image" id="image" src="pic1.gif"
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif'"
onMouseOut="document.getElementById('image').src=' pic1.gif'" />
Actually, I believe the semi-colon to be proper, though possibly
unnecessary, syntax (anyone else know?)...what was a typo on my part,
though, was writing
src='pic2.gif;'"
when it should be
src='pic2.gif';"
with the semi-colon in-between the single-quote and the double-quote.
However, that was just a typo in my post to this thread, not the
actual code that had been uploaded to my webhost (I was recreating the
code from memory and slipped over the keyboard.)
It turns out now that SBI! has a bug in their CMS which requires the
first src attribute of an <imgtag involved in an image-swap to use
the absolute file path name format, while everything else can remain
relative.
On May 13, 10:41 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>
Correct, the ';' can go at the *end* of a JavaScript statement so
onMouseOver="document.getElementById('image').src= 'pic2.gif';"
would also be valid. NOTE location of ';' but as I mentioned elsewhere
in the thread, very clumsy to use whole JavaScript statements inline,
better to create a function AND preload the images.
Yes, yes -- that bit of code was just to simplify things for tech
support to diagnose (instead of them having to check out whether it
was all the other JavaScript screwing things up). The issue turned
out to be a bug in their CMS which just didn't see the first src
attribute in an <imgtag involved in image-swaps.
Weird!!! And I'm quitting SBI! over what seems a small thing because
I don't know what other "small things" might pop up in the future
taking two weeks to resolve.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On May 13, 9:22 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.comwrote:
>
You know what that's caused by? Case issues in filenames. Sometimes "
" space characters in filenames not being encoded correctly in URLs
(although browsers usually compensate for that).
Your desktop is almost certainly Windows (case-insensitive filenames).
Your web server filesystem is almost certainly Unix (case-sensitive
filenames). Your web server is probably (unless they deliberately
change this) also case-sensitive in URLs.
So when you test with a local filename that has the wrong case, your
Windows system doesn't care and it all works.
You upload this to the server (now case-sensitive) and it fails.
Huh? Sorry, but case-sensitivity does not appear to be the issue
here. It's an interesting point you raise, which I note for my future
reference, thank you kindly, but I don't see how it applies to my
situation, since my file names are all lower-case, as was every
reference to them in my src attributes...and besides, surely a webhost
should have provided for such matters anyway.
You talk to tech support, and you both talk yourself into this cargo-
cult
LOL -- SBI! as a cargo-cult! It's more true than not, yes...I was
actually thinking of that Heaven's Gate cult of suicidal UFO-believing
website designers from the '90s....
>that it's using an absolute path that's the trick. You get this
absolute path by browsing to the directory with the files in (through
the web server), seeing a list of file URLs (generated by the server,
so the case is correct) and you then copy and paste one of these.
????
Two things have happened: you've switched from relative to absolute
(obvious, but unimportant) and you've also corrected the case of the
filename in the URL (easily ignored but crucial). _That's_ why "it
started working when you went to absolute paths".
I apologize, Andy, but I know nothing about servers, so I'm not able
to place your remarks in a useful context vis-a-vis my situation...if
you don't mind, would you please do a step-by-step "chronology" of the
chain of events? I honestly don't know how to "parse" your
statements; I don't know how servers work and it sounds like you're
referring to how they work....
On May 12, 11:41 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>
No, but you have to have your relative paths correct...
Look, look at this: http://ego-management.org/test.html -- look at the
HTML/JavaScript.
Notice that my image-swap now works?
The **only** thing that's different now from when it didn't work is
that the first src attribute in the <imgtag has an absolute file
path name.
It's got nothing to do with whether my path names were correct -- they
were; they just were in relative format, whereas due to a bug in their
CMS they need the first one to be in absolute format when used as an
image-swap.
<snipped signature YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS >
Huh?
Okay are you sure the uploaded images are not corrupted? Upload as ASCII
and not BINARY can do it. In a different path. Case error on filename, a
common Windows user error. On local Windows drive example.jpg,
ExAmPlE.JpG and example.JPG are all the same, but no on a live
webserver.
No, none of that was the reason. It was "simply" their CMS not seeing
the first src attribute unless that first src attribute was in
absolute file path format.
If the images are of significant size and a slow connection
or server you may not see the change when to crudely place the image
load in a onMouseOver onMouseOut attribute, Far better to preload. Let
me see, been a while since I have fiddle with JavaScript image swaps
I took out preloading, timed animation, cursor graphics changes, etc.,
because I wanted to help clarify the issue for tech support. That's
why http://ego-management.org/test.html is called "test," and why it's
a very simple <html><head><title></title></head><body><img /></body></
htmlaffair.
<script type="text/javascript">
var pix as new Object;
pix['imageID1']=new Array;
pix['imageID1'][0]=new Image;
pix['imageID1'][0].src='someimageoff.gif';
pix['imageID1'][1]=new Image;
pix['imageID1'][1].src='someimageon.gif';
// next image
pix['imageID2']=new Array;
pix['imageID2'][0]=new Image;
...
function swap(id,state){
var target=document.getElementById(id);
target.src=pix[id][state].src;}
</script>
In HTML:
<img id="imageID1" src="someimageoff.gif' alt="the target image">
...
<some_element onmouseover="swap('imageID1',1);"
onmouseout="swap('imageID1',0);" ... >
Uh...thanks, but that would certainly have confused tech support.
Remember that they (and even you people!) kept thinking I was asking
for programming help!
I'm not.
I'm asking why a program that works from off my hard drive doesn't
work from off their server.
But for some reason when people see code they just assume the problem
is due to the code -- as opposed to however the CMS or whatever is
parsing that code.
It turns out that their CMS has a bug which causes it to ignore the
first src attribute of an image-swap, thus killing the image-swap,
unless that src attribute is in absolute file path name format.
And that's just the final straw for me.
I don't want to maybe spend more time figuring out any other strange
little things particular to them, later on.
I'm still almost sorry to have to cancel them, as they are good in
other ways, but as a webhost...nahh, just too much one thing after
another (unless you just turn off your brain and use their cookie-
cutter webpage maker widget).
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On May 13, 6:32 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.comwrote:
>
The simplest explanation, and this is backed up by long empirical
studies conducted by _anyone_ who has supported users, is that what
you're describing to us doesn't bear too much relation to the actual
reality. That's the first lesson of supporting users, and just one
reason why you don't touch such issues with a bargepole unless you can
get your _own_ hands on the same code, in the same context.
IOW, the so-called "availability heuristic" -- assessing the
individual situation at hand based on the examples that come most
readily to mind.
Stereotyping, in short. The pre-conceptions you've brought made you
see things that weren't there. Just like how the SBI! CMS has certain
"pre-conceptions" programmed into it that made it not see things that
*are* there.
Why their CMS needs to see absolute file paths is strange -- but
stranger still is why it's only the first src that needs it; moreover,
only in the case of an image-swap -- everything else in standard
relative path format works!
For $300 a year, this is just too silly for me to deal with,
especially since it's taken two weeks to diagnose. What next? No
blue text in a <h3>??
In your last reply to me you claimed that setting an onmouseover event
to a URL for an image somehow "works", so long as it's on your
machine, or it's on the host's (and uses an absolute path). Despite
this clearly _not_ being what your example does.
Uhhh...I guess we're stumbling over semantics, then.
Look at the code for http://www.ego-management.org/test.html and tell
me what is wrong with it. I don't mean from a "good practices" POV;
merely what would cause it to not work.
It works, doesn't it?
Yet the ***only*** thing that's different from what hadn't worked
before was that the first src attribute of the <imgtag was in
relative file path format -- like the other src attributes still are,
incidentally.
What's your explanation for that? Why does the same exact code work
now, only with an absolute file path -- and only on that first src
attribute?
Now if this _is_
true, that's news to the W3C: this stuff just doesn't work quite that
way. So my only conclusion has to be that there's some vagueness
creeping in between the code that's failing to work, and the code
you're reporting to us for diagnosis. No one is "wrong" here, it's
just like trying to work at too long range, wearing thick gloves and
dark glasses.
What I was aghast over was people's attitude that the issue was not
something my webhost had a responsibility to resolve -- their own
attitude initially, too -- despite my repeated declarations that the
situation is not about programming help for invalid code, but why
valid code (strict W3C "good practices" aside) should work off my hard
drive but not off their servers.
This is also why most posters here insist on URLs, rather than posted
fragments.
I've given a URL: http://ego-management.org/test.html -- see how it's
as simple as I've said all along, isn't it: notice how the first src
attribute is in absolute file path format, but not the others?
That URL wasn't working until that one change was made -- that's all;
just that one little thing.
Sorry, SBI! -- I'd loved you, but you just keep getting more and more
weird on me!
On May 12, 10:07 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
>
But you don't even understand baysic things like how to size images
properly for the web which is baysic stuff.
Huh???
Wow, what a nit-picking non sequitur...should I point out your poor
spelling as a reason to discount what you have to say??
And just what is it you have to say? How have you added to the
conversation??
It's precisely because I do not know that I've come to ask for advice.
If you have something relevant to the matter at hand, please share it.
On May 12, 10:32 pm, shawn <javaforh...@gmail.comwrote:
This whole thread is either somebody's desire to waste developer's
time, or an attempt to discredit the host. This lil tangent has gone
too far. I thought this was a group devoted to JavaScript.
I posted to CLJ originally because my situation seemed to involve
JavaScript -- at least that's what the webhost was initially saying,
that it was my invalid code and not something the matter with how they
host websites. So I posted to CLP to see if someone might find that
there was indeed something the matter with my code.
Turns out it's something to do with their CMS. That it's taken two
weeks for them to determine that is but another fact speaking for
itself. If my review of the webhost is negative, it is due to the
accumulation of such facts.
On May 12, 10:41 pm, "Andrew Heenan" <andr...@heenan.netwrote:
>
Which group do you mean?
You have posted to FIVE groups.
=)
Look, everyone, I'm sorry that it seems my thread and the problem it
documents is taking up some much bandwidth (or whatever) -- I was
hoping to solicit a wide range of opinions, as well as establish a
"public record" where it would seem relevant to do so. Please
consider all this as just a public-service kind of consumer advisory.
--
Andrew
UK Residents:
STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff"
Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the
very poorest tell your friends about this petition:http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/
Prisoner at War wrote:
On May 12, 10:07 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
But you don't even understand baysic things like how to size images
properly for the web which is baysic stuff.
Huh???
Wow, what a nit-picking non sequitur...should I point out your poor
spelling as a reason to discount what you have to say??
And just what is it you have to say? How have you added to the
conversation??
It's precisely because I do not know that I've come to ask for advice.
Yep, I do understand that. Mind you I think what I am trying to say is
that you should do a bit more reading on baysic web design issues.
Such as not adding things to your pages that do not need to be there.
Mind you it is all a learning thing and with the way that the web is
changeing all the time it can be hard to stay on top of things. But
the simple stuff does not change that much.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
I'm an idiot, and yet you do exactly as I do and cross-post in your
turn.
What a hypocrite to boot!
These newsgroups are not "irrelevant"...the only thing irrelevant is
your constant bitching over my consumer complaint. I had to come to
usenet 'cause I couldn't trust that SBI! knew what the hell they're
talking about anymore. I don't know why that should upset you, unless
"Jerry Stuckle" is just JavaScript for
onLoad="document.head.setAttribute('stupid')"....
This thread concerns webhosts (thus, AP and AWW), consumers (MC),
website development (CIWAH), and originally maybe JavaScript (CLP).
If you can't be bothered to help, please just do yourself a favor and
stop following this thread.
On May 13, 11:52 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>
Yea, unfortunately, the idiot crossposted to a bunch of other irrelevant
newsgroups.
With everything else in the thread - enough said.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attglobal.net
==================
On May 13, 6:37 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.comwrote:
>
Wasn't it something like "Cronin's 14th Law of Dotcom" that you should
never trust a dot-com company that uses exclamation marks in their
company name?
If only it were limited to their name! Their whole branding strategy
seems to involve exclamation points...they have online modules
("widgets") called SearchIt!, FindIt!, BrainstormIt!, FastUploadIt!,
SiteBlogIt!, BuildIt!, FormBuildIt!....
I know it's all very hokey and late-night-TV-infomercial-y but hey I'm
a newbie and it seemed as good as any place to start...their citing
the University of Arizona and The Citadel as being among their
subscribers meant a lot to me, and their money-back guarantee seemed
fair, even generous, and safe....
I'd still recommend them, but only for people who don't really care
how their website looks and have absolutely no interest in "web
development mechanics"...they're not turn-key automation, though they
try to suggest that, but they are probably as close as could be come
to that short of hiring someone to do it for you.
Part of the reason why I'm being public about all this is that you
can't find an honest review of them on the web. They're not a bad
company, AFAIK, but it's very strange how you can't find a single
negative review of them (not on either side of 30 SERPs, anyway),
either, so hopefully this thread will prove of some future use in a
sea of sales landing pages.
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
>
Yep, I do understand that. Mind you I think what I am trying to say is
that you should do a bit more reading on baysic web design issues.
Such as not adding things to your pages that do not need to be there.
That's my life-philosophy, my Weltanschauung, even; I don't even have
a phone (none whatsoever) 'cause I don't really need it. "Minimalism"
and "less is more" are personal ideals to live by!
But this situation has nothing to do with those issues. I'm not
asking for aesthetic judgments on whether an '90s-style image-swap is
advisable; I was asking how could valid code that works off my hard
drive not work off the webhost's server. I had no "intellectual
framework" in which to imagine such a possibility until, thanks to
this thread, I learned about something called Content Management
Software....
Mind you it is all a learning thing and with the way that the web is
changeing all the time it can be hard to stay on top of things. But
the simple stuff does not change that much.
I just got "DOM Scripting" last week and I'm almost halfway through it
(though digestion and actual grokking will be considerably longer, of
course).
--
Regards Chad.http://freewebdesignonline.org
Prisoner at War wrote:
On May 12, 11:41 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>>
No, but you have to have your relative paths correct...
Look, look at this: http://ego-management.org/test.html -- look at the
HTML/JavaScript.
Notice that my image-swap now works?
The **only** thing that's different now from when it didn't work is
that the first src attribute in the <imgtag has an absolute file
path name.
It's got nothing to do with whether my path names were correct -- they
were; they just were in relative format, whereas due to a bug in their
CMS they need the first one to be in absolute format when used as an
image-swap.
That make no sense at all. If you properly use a relative path to your
Document Root (which on a webserver you have, but on a local file system
you don't) is will work. With your page, if the image is in the folder
"image-files" off of your document root and the webpage is in your
document root then: http://www.ego-management.org/image-files/awww4.png
image-files/awww4.png
../image-files/awww4.png
/image-files/awww4.png
would all display the image. Don't believe me? Create a file
"test2.html" in your document root and paste this code.
<html><head><title>4 Dogs</title></head>
<body>
<h1>See 4 Dogs</h1>
<ol>
<li>
<img src="http://www.ego-management.org/image-files/awww4.png" alt="one">
</li>
<li>
<img src="image-files/awww4.png" alt="two">
</li>
</li>
<li>
<img src="./image-files/awww4.png" alt="two">
</li>
</li>
<li>
<img src="/image-files/awww4.png" alt="two">
</li>
</ol>
</body></html>
>
><snipped signature YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS >
Huh?
Time to learn how to post on Usenet. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...Usenet&spell=1
netiquette posting on Usenet - Google Search
>Okay are you sure the uploaded images are not corrupted? Upload as ASCII
and not BINARY can do it. In a different path. Case error on filename, a
common Windows user error. On local Windows drive example.jpg,
ExAmPlE.JpG and example.JPG are all the same, but no on a live
webserver.
No, none of that was the reason. It was "simply" their CMS not seeing
the first src attribute unless that first src attribute was in
absolute file path format.
What CMS? Are to publishing though from sort of frontend? Can you not
compose in plain text editor, like Notepad then FTP the page to the server?
>
>If the images are of significant size and a slow connection
or server you may not see the change when to crudely place the image
load in a onMouseOver onMouseOut attribute, Far better to preload. Let
me see, been a while since I have fiddle with JavaScript image swaps
I took out preloading, timed animation, cursor graphics changes, etc.,
because I wanted to help clarify the issue for tech support. That's
why http://ego-management.org/test.html is called "test," and why it's
a very simple <html><head><title></title></head><body><img /></body></
htmlaffair.
><script type="text/javascript">
var pix as new Object;
pix['imageID1']=new Array;
pix['imageID1'][0]=new Image;
pix['imageID1'][0].src='someimageoff.gif';
pix['imageID1'][1]=new Image;
pix['imageID1'][1].src='someimageon.gif';
// next image
pix['imageID2']=new Array;
pix['imageID2'][0]=new Image;
...
function swap(id,state){
var target=document.getElementById(id);
target.src=pix[id][state].src;}
</script>
In HTML:
<img id="imageID1" src="someimageoff.gif' alt="the target image">
...
<some_element onmouseover="swap('imageID1',1);"
onmouseout="swap('imageID1',0);" ... >
Uh...thanks, but that would certainly have confused tech support.
Remember that they (and even you people!) kept thinking I was asking
for programming help!
A hosting company will not debug your scripts. At least not for free...
<snip>
Note, answer to question about trimming signatures. Below is my
signature which you have quoted. Don't. Remove my signature, real
newsreaders do this automatically. But don't snip quotes attributes for
quotes that you leave in. You see this thread as one long web page, that
is not how it looks in a newsreader.
>
>--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On May 13, 3:11 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>
That make no sense at all. If you properly use a relative path to your
Document Root (which on a webserver you have, but on a local file system
you don't) is will work. With your page, if the image is in the folder
"image-files" off of your document root and the webpage is in your
document root then:
http://www.ego-management.org/image-files/awww4.png
image-files/awww4.png
./image-files/awww4.png
/image-files/awww4.png
would all display the image. Don't believe me? Create a file
"test2.html" in your document root and paste this code.
<html><head><title>4 Dogs</title></head>
<body>
<h1>See 4 Dogs</h1>
<ol>
<li>
<img src="http://www.ego-management.org/image-files/awww4.png" alt="one">
</li>
<li>
<img src="image-files/awww4.png" alt="two">
</li>
</li>
<li>
<img src="./image-files/awww4.png" alt="two">
</li>
</li>
<li>
<img src="/image-files/awww4.png" alt="two">
</li>
</ol>
</body></html>
I'm sorry, I don't even know what you mean to say.
Why should the first src attribute be in absolute path format?
Time to learn how to post on Usenet.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...rg.mozilla:en-...
netiquette posting on Usenet - Google Search
Ah, so you were referring to your .sig not being trimmed.
Tell me, why do you have a .sig if you want other people to trim it?
Just don't have a .sig at all, then, if you don't want people to see
it!
What CMS? Are to publishing though from sort of frontend? Can you not
compose in plain text editor, like Notepad then FTP the page to the server?
The CMS on their side...apparently, they use some kind of CMS to host
the websites they do...they're not just a regular standard webhost; I
can't just FTP up an image or something; I can only send up an .html
document through a specific widget of theirs, and only then upload
images ***if*** the webpage specifically calls for them...it's very
weird and awkward and ham-fisted since their system was not designed
for people to create their own HTML -- but they try to accommodate
those who don't want to use their online widgets for website creation
(since that results in a "cookie-cutter look")...unfortunately,
there's at least one bug in their CMS, such that a simple image-swap
can occasion such a fuss....
A hosting company will not debug your scripts. At least not for free...
<snip>
Jesus F. Christ -- I AM NOT asking them for programming help!!! I
HAVE NEVER asked them for programming help!!! What don't you
understand between code that works in my browser when loaded from my
hard drive, and ***the same exact code*** not working in my browser
when loaded from their server!!
Please get your head around that! Otherwise you are heading towards a
wholly different conversation than what I'm having here!!
Note, answer to question about trimming signatures. Below is my
signature which you have quoted. Don't. Remove my signature, real
newsreaders do this automatically. But don't snip quotes attributes for
quotes that you leave in. You see this thread as one long web page, that
is not how it looks in a newsreader.
Geez, why should I be responsible for the fact that your software
can't do what seems a most logical thing, which is to display a thread
as a tree??
Why should I be responsible for trimming text (your .sig) that you
want to put in??
Why would you even use a .sig if you want people to redact it out????
<SNIP>
There, Happy Birthday! =\
On May 14, 3:01 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
>
It turns out now that SBI! has a bug in their CMS which requires the
first src attribute of an <imgtag involved in an image-swap to use
the absolute file path name format, while everything else can remain
relative.
That is interesting. I have seen this before in some WYSIWYG inline
editors. Would they be using something called tiny_mce or something
like that? I think that there is a flag in the configuration of this
WYSIWYG editor that says to "resolve paths when saving content" or
"dont resolve paths". Just a guess and a thought from past experience
with these types of tools.
Prisoner at War wrote:
On May 13, 1:05 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
Yep, I do understand that. Mind you I think what I am trying to say is
that you should do a bit more reading on baysic web design issues.
Such as not adding things to your pages that do not need to be there.
That's my life-philosophy, my Weltanschauung, even; I don't even have
a phone (none whatsoever) 'cause I don't really need it. "Minimalism"
and "less is more" are personal ideals to live by!
But this situation has nothing to do with those issues. I'm not
asking for aesthetic judgments on whether an '90s-style image-swap is
advisable; I was asking how could valid code that works off my hard
drive not work off the webhost's server.
By not actually being valid code. Read about quirks vs standards mode
and gain a good understanding of it before doing anything. It can have
a large impact on how your pages work on the web.
For a start your page does not have a doctype, give it one and
validate your pages. DO NOT use XHTML I have set my editor to not use
it for all new sites that I develop. Google for the reasons why you
should not use it.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
<snip>
On 13 May, 17:43, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
Why their CMS needs to see absolute file paths is strange -- but
stranger still is why it's only the first src that needs it;
So swap it back to being a relative filepath. Now that it's working, I
bet that it will _continue_ to work when you change this. That's
because this wasn't ever the problem at all.
Maybe you'll think it's "stereotyping" when I tell you that this is a
very common situation in user support. This is also why you always aim
to get a simple example _working_ first, then modify it gradually to
do what you need (whilst also keeping it working). Changing something
that's working is so much easier than fixing something that isn't
working.
I don't know why it didn't (past tense) work, but I doubt _VERY_ much
if it was to do with absolute paths. It just doesn't work that way.
Something else caused the problem, you didn't notice quite what it was
that fixed it, it just happened at the same time. Now switch the path
(and ONLY the path) back to being relative, and I bet it will still
keep on working.
Welcome to user support. That's what it consists of day in, day out.
This is how cargo cults develop.
Look at the code for <http://www.ego-management.org/test.htmland tell
me what is wrong with it.
It works, doesn't it?
No one is disputing that, merely that it could also be different
(relative path), yet still work.
On 8 May, 21:54, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
the image-swap itself is your basic <img
src="blah.png" onMouseOver="bleh.gif" onMouseOut="blah.png">.
For utter perversity, you _could_ do this: 8-)
<img id="hardway" src="rollover_normal.png"
onMouseOver="rollover_hover.png" onMouseOut="rollover_normal.png" >
With this JS:
<script type="text/javascript" >
function rollable_trap(e) {
if (!e) var e = window.event;
var elmRolled = e.target;
switch (e.type) {
case 'mouseover':
elmRolled.src = elmRolled.getAttribute( 'onMouseOver' );
break;
case 'mouseout':
elmRolled.src = elmRolled.getAttribute( 'onMouseOut' );
break;
}
e.cancelBubble = true;
if (e.stopPropagation) e.stopPropagation();
}
function onload_listenForRolloverEvents () {
var elmRollable = document.getElementById('hardway');
if (elmRollable) {
// Do it the crude way, rather than using addEventListener()
// This avoids the error raised by the old URL value for "the
handler" being treated as a function
elmRollable.onmouseover = rollable_trap;
elmRollable.onmouseout = rollable_trap;
}
}
/* ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** ******
****** ****** */
// A listener list for the initial onload event
window.onloadListeners = new Array();
window.addOnLoadListener = function( listener ) {
window.onloadListeners [window.onloadListeners.length] = listener;
}
window.onload = function () {
for (var i in window.onloadListeners) {
window.onloadListeners [i] ();
}
}
// Add some listeners
window.addOnLoadListener( onload_listenForRolloverEvents );
</script>
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:11:58 -0400, Jonathan N. Little put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>Prisoner at War wrote:
>On May 12, 11:41 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>>>
No, but you have to have your relative paths correct...
Look, look at this: http://ego-management.org/test.html -- look at the
HTML/JavaScript.
Notice that my image-swap now works?
The **only** thing that's different now from when it didn't work is
that the first src attribute in the <imgtag has an absolute file
path name.
It's got nothing to do with whether my path names were correct -- they
were; they just were in relative format, whereas due to a bug in their
CMS they need the first one to be in absolute format when used as an
image-swap.
That make no sense at all. If you properly use a relative path to your
Document Root (which on a webserver you have, but on a local file system
you don't) is will work.
I think that the OP means "relative to the document root" when he says
"absolute" - that is, an absolute path as far as the browser is
concerned (starting with a "/"). In this context, "relative" is
usually taken to mean "relative to the current page URL". In this
context, the first and last of your examples are "absolute" to the
browser, as they will work from any page on his site no matter what
its location in the URL structure. The middle two, by contrast, will
only work if the page is in the document root itself: http://www.ego-management.org/image-files/awww4.png
image-files/awww4.png
../image-files/awww4.png
/image-files/awww4.png
If that is the case then that also explains his problem. If you're
using an online CMS - particularly a javascript-based WYSIWYG CMS -
then you need to make your image paths absolute URLs (ie, relative to
the document root), as the relative path from the CMS is usually
different to the relative path from the public location of the page.
If you use a relative URL when creating pages in an online CMS, then
either the page will work in the CMS but not in the main site, or work
in the main site but not the CMS. And that's not a "bug" in the CMS,
it's a normal consequence of using one.
Mark
--
Miscellaneous remarks at http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk
"All this talk of getting old, it's getting me down my love"
LOL!!
That's actually rather similar to a "web-standards" version offered by
the book "DOM Scripting" (excellent book for beginners ready to get
"intermediate"), but yes, rather perverse in reality even though it
serves the otherwise worthy ideal of markup-styling-behavior
separation.
On May 14, 3:04 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
>
By not actually being valid code. Read about quirks vs standards mode
and gain a good understanding of it before doing anything. It can have
a large impact on how your pages work on the web.
For a start your page does not have a doctype, give it one and
validate your pages. DO NOT use XHTML
If I haven't mentioned it before to you (I did to somebody -- a
handful of somebodies now, but can't remember whomever exactly), let
me do so:
The original webpage had doctypes, etc., etc. This current one,
"test.html," was designed to help tech support diagnose the issue by
removing the visual "clutter" of extraneous code that did not
highlight the problem (of a simple perfectly valid image-swap not
working).
Again, I don't know why you guys keep looking all over the place when
the problem is right in front of you: a simple and valid image-swap
does not work when hosted by their server. It's got nothing to do
with XHTML, etc.
I have set my editor to not use
it for all new sites that I develop. Google for the reasons why you
should not use it.
But XHTML is a W3C recommendation, is it not? Despite my disdain for
usenet rules like top-posting, sig-snipping, etc., I do believe in web
standards. Personally I prefer the laissez-faire ethos of good ol'
HTML, but I understand why for consistency's sake (that is,
consistency with the "semantics" of developing and future
technologies) XHTML might be preferred.
--
Regards Chad.http://freewebdesignonline.org
<snip>
On May 14, 7:59 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.comwrote:
>
So swap it back to being a relative filepath. Now that it's working, I
bet that it will _continue_ to work when you change this. That's
because this wasn't ever the problem at all.
Maybe you'll think it's "stereotyping" when I tell you that this is a
very common situation in user support. This is also why you always aim
to get a simple example _working_ first, then modify it gradually to
do what you need (whilst also keeping it working). Changing something
that's working is so much easier than fixing something that isn't
working.
I don't know why it didn't (past tense) work, but I doubt _VERY_ much
if it was to do with absolute paths. It just doesn't work that way.
Something else caused the problem, you didn't notice quite what it was
that fixed it, it just happened at the same time. Now switch the path
(and ONLY the path) back to being relative, and I bet it will still
keep on working.
Interesting proposition; I will, and will update my findings! Bear in
mind, though, that the absolute path reason is given by their own
"programmers" (that's what tech support said), and I should think they
know what they're doing -- even if they won't explain further why and
how it works that way....
Welcome to user support. That's what it consists of day in, day out.
This is how cargo cults develop.
Eh? Sorry, I've read Marvin Harris' "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches:
The Riddles of Culture" but I'm not sure I see the connection between
how cargo cults develop and the user support experience you're
alluding to....
No one is disputing that, merely that it could also be different
(relative path), yet still work.
Good grief, man!!
That's how it **started** out, with relative paths, as per standard
practice!
When that didn't work (on *their* end -- i.e., over the WWW from their
server), that's when I contacted tech support and was told, after two
weeks, that I had to use an absolute path for that first src
attribute!
Whereupon I came to usenet soliciting opinions concerning what seemed
even to my newbie self as a very strange situation.
I *know* relative path format is supposed to work...the issue for me
is whether this webhost, SBI, is just very strange, or whether all,
most, many, or some webhosts also have weird things about them, where
they require you to do things in a certain way (with SBI! you upload
through their widget, not just FTP whatever you want) -- even code/
markup a certain way (as in this image-swap case here)....
Ultimately, I'm quitting these folks (I still regret it a bit, as they
can be very educational, particularly about the business/marketing
side of things), but I need to know what to expect **of** a webhost,
what would be industry standards...SBI! is all I know and though I
appreciate the hand-holding they provide I'm afraid I don't want to
deal with one nagging weirdness (like this image-swap that took two
weeks to resolve) after another (like not supporting .ani or .cur
files), with God-knows-how-many-more to come...so I need another
webhost.
But before I sign up again, I need to know what to expect, how
webhosts work...can I assume that anything I can create on my laptop I
can put up on a webhost's server and it'll run just as it does when
off my hard drive??
On May 14, 3:05 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
>
I think that the OP means "relative to the document root" when he says
"absolute" - that is, an absolute path as far as the browser is
concerned (starting with a "/").
Hey, I'm just taking my cue from SBI! tech support, which is just
passing along the message from their "programmers" -- they're the ones
calling it an absolute file path name format. I've adopted the label
on the assumption that they know what they're talking about.
In this context, "relative" is
usually taken to mean "relative to the current page URL".
Yeah, it seems that "http://www.my-website.com" is the "root" and an
absolute path for a file would be "http://www.my-website.com/files/
file.doc" as opposed to "files/file.doc" -- which is relative format,
relative to the document calling for the file.
In this
context, the first and last of your examples are "absolute" to the
browser, as they will work from any page on his site no matter what
its location in the URL structure. The middle two, by contrast, will
only work if the page is in the document root itself:
http://www.ego-management.org/image-files/awww4.png
image-files/awww4.png
./image-files/awww4.png
/image-files/awww4.png
Sorry, can't follow along...all I know is that "absolute" is like
telling someone the full mailing address of a geographical location,
while "relative" is like telling someone "it's down the block on the
corner."
If that is the case then that also explains his problem. If you're
using an online CMS - particularly a javascript-based WYSIWYG CMS -
then you need to make your image paths absolute URLs (ie, relative to
the document root), as the relative path from the CMS is usually
different to the relative path from the public location of the page.
But why only the first src attribute; how come the other two can
remain relative, as I'd had them originally??
If you use a relative URL when creating pages in an online CMS, then
either the page will work in the CMS but not in the main site, or work
in the main site but not the CMS. And that's not a "bug" in the CMS,
it's a normal consequence of using one.
Seems to be a "bug" in the same way Y2K was a bug -- not accounting
for the way people actually do things. I don't know anything about
CMS (only found out about it in this thread!), but surely software
designed to manage content shouldn't require that content to deviate
from standard practices -- and relative path format is standard
practice for addressing a file that's in the same domain!
Mark
--
Miscellaneous remarks athttp://Mark.Goodge.co.uk
"All this talk of getting old, it's getting me down my love"
On May 13, 6:09 pm, Disco Octopus <di...@discooctopus.comwrote:
>
That is interesting. I have seen this before in some WYSIWYG inline
editors. Would they be using something called tiny_mce or something
like that? I think that there is a flag in the configuration of this
WYSIWYG editor that says to "resolve paths when saving content" or
"dont resolve paths". Just a guess and a thought from past experience
with these types of tools.
I don't know how SBI! runs its affairs, but someone else has also
noted that characteristic of content management software...so when I
get a new webhost, how do I make sure this kind of situation doesn't
arise again? What kind of per-sales question would I ask of them --
"can I use relative file path format?"?
On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Prisoner at War put finger
to keyboard and typed:
>On May 13, 6:09 pm, Disco Octopus <di...@discooctopus.comwrote:
>>
That is interesting. I have seen this before in some WYSIWYG inline
editors. Would they be using something called tiny_mce or something
like that? I think that there is a flag in the configuration of this
WYSIWYG editor that says to "resolve paths when saving content" or
"dont resolve paths". Just a guess and a thought from past experience
with these types of tools.
I don't know how SBI! runs its affairs, but someone else has also
noted that characteristic of content management software...so when I
get a new webhost, how do I make sure this kind of situation doesn't
arise again? What kind of per-sales question would I ask of them --
"can I use relative file path format?"?
Using relative URLs is often not a good idea anyway, as it means that
things will break if you move pages around. I use absolute URLs (ie,
file paths relative to the document root) as a matter of course - it's
no harder to type, and it avoids having to change things later.
If you're creating a website that's essentially static, though (ie,
not generated on the fly by means of server-side scripting taking
content from a database), then there's no real need for a CMS at all.
It's a lot easier to write the pages offline and upload them by ftp.
Mark
--
Pointless waffle (again) at http://mark.x.tc
"All I want is to find an easier way to get out of our little heads"
On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Prisoner at War put finger
to keyboard and typed:
>On May 14, 3:05 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
>>
In this
context, the first and last of your examples are "absolute" to the
browser, as they will work from any page on his site no matter what
its location in the URL structure. The middle two, by contrast, will
only work if the page is in the document root itself:
http://www.ego-management.org/image-files/awww4.png
image-files/awww4.png
./image-files/awww4.png
/image-files/awww4.png
Sorry, can't follow along...all I know is that "absolute" is like
telling someone the full mailing address of a geographical location,
while "relative" is like telling someone "it's down the block on the
corner."
I think you need to read up on how HTML works. This is basic stuff,
and if you're having problems understanding what I've just written
then you're a lot further back in the class than you really ought to
be.
>If that is the case then that also explains his problem. If you're
using an online CMS - particularly a javascript-based WYSIWYG CMS -
then you need to make your image paths absolute URLs (ie, relative to
the document root), as the relative path from the CMS is usually
different to the relative path from the public location of the page.
But why only the first src attribute; how come the other two can
remain relative, as I'd had them originally??
Probably because the CMS can guess the correct relative URL for the
rollovers if at least one of them is absolute.
>If you use a relative URL when creating pages in an online CMS, then
either the page will work in the CMS but not in the main site, or work
in the main site but not the CMS. And that's not a "bug" in the CMS,
it's a normal consequence of using one.
Seems to be a "bug" in the same way Y2K was a bug -- not accounting
for the way people actually do things.
It's not a bug, because it's how the web is supposed to work.
I don't know anything about
CMS (only found out about it in this thread!), but surely software
designed to manage content shouldn't require that content to deviate
from standard practices -- and relative path format is standard
practice for addressing a file that's in the same domain!
No, it isn't. Relative addressing is one way to do it for a file
that's in a fixed position relative to the page that references it.
But that's precisely what you don't have when you use a CMS - the page
being created in the CMS editor is in a different location to the
public version of the same page. So the relative address isn't fixed.
Absolute URLs, on the other hand, will work anywhere.
Mark
--
Stuff, some of it good, at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"Love is a precious thing, worth the pain and suffering"
On May 14, 5:15 pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
>
I think you need to read up on how HTML works. This is basic stuff,
and if you're having problems understanding what I've just written
then you're a lot further back in the class than you really ought to
be.
I know HTML; what I didn't get was what you meant by what you said.
What's "absolute to the browser" mean?? What is a "document root"??
Probably because the CMS can guess the correct relative URL for the
rollovers if at least one of them is absolute.
Yes, of course; but if it's smart enough to put find the correct
relative URL for the remaining src attributes, why isn't it smart
enough to have found the first one when it was also in relative path
format? I mean, what's the CMS thinking?? It knows my website is
"http://www.my-website.com/" so why not just assume that any files
called for will be within that domain?? Why not just assume that
"image-files/image.gif" is just going to be appended after the URL???
It's not a bug, because it's how the web is supposed to work.
Huh? The web is supposed to work...how?? First src attributes in an
<imgtag are supposed to be in absolute path format, according to the
W3C??? That's what we're talking about here. Why a CMS should
require such an oddity is why it's a programming bug.
No, it isn't. Relative addressing is one way to do it for a file
that's in a fixed position relative to the page that references it.
But that's precisely what you don't have when you use a CMS - the page
being created in the CMS editor is in a different location to the
public version of the same page. So the relative address isn't fixed.
"The page being created in the CMS editor"...huh??? "In a different
location [than] the public version of the same page"...so my page is
uploaded to a CMS which then actually does something to it *and then*
puts it out onto the web???
I thought content management software only keeps tabs on stuff...not
actually work on 'em!!
Still, it seems bizarre that programmers couldn't have taken into
account how most src attributes in your typical <imgtag are written
(that is, in relative path names)...if it's valid HTML/CSS/whatever,
the CMS ought to work with it instead of requiring someone to work
around the CMS! Hence it is a bug in the manner of Y2K -- computers
should work for man, not the other way around.
Absolute URLs, on the other hand, will work anywhere.
Eh??? I'd read that *relative* file name paths are what are portable
and "will work anywhere," since their relation is always to one
another and not to some root that may change with webhosts or
directory re-organizations....
Mark
--
Stuff, some of it good, athttp://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"Love is a precious thing, worth the pain and suffering"
On May 15, 6:19*am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
On May 14, 3:04 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
By not actually being valid code. Read about quirks vs standards mode
and gain a good understanding of it before doing anything. It can have
a large impact on how your pages work on the web.
For a start your page does not have a doctype, give it one and
validate your pages. DO NOT use XHTML
If I haven't mentioned it before to you (I did to somebody -- a
handful of somebodies now, but can't remember whomever exactly), let
me do so:
The original webpage had doctypes, etc., etc. *This current one,
"test.html," was designed to help tech support diagnose the issue by
removing the visual "clutter" of extraneous code that did not
highlight the problem (of a simple perfectly valid image-swap not
working).
Again, I don't know why you guys keep looking all over the place when
the problem is right in front of you: a simple and valid image-swap
does not work when hosted by their server. *It's got nothing to do
with XHTML, etc.
I have set my editor to not use
it for all new sites that I develop. Google for the reasons why you
should not use it.
But XHTML is a W3C recommendation, is it not? *Despite my disdain for
usenet rules like top-posting, sig-snipping, etc., I do believe in web
standards. *Personally I prefer the laissez-faire ethos of good ol'
HTML, but I understand why for consistency's sake (that is,
consistency with the "semantics" of developing and future
technologies) XHTML might be preferred.
It's not supported by any version of Internet Explorer. http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
On 14 May, 22:10, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
Using relative URLs is often not a good idea anyway, as it means that
things will break if you move pages around. I use absolute URLs (ie,
file paths relative to the document root) as a matter of course - it's
no harder to type, and it avoids having to change things later.
Bollocks.
On 14 May, 21:19, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
But XHTML is a W3C recommendation, is it not? Despite my disdain for
usenet rules like top-posting, sig-snipping, etc., I do believe in web
standards. Personally I prefer the laissez-faire ethos of good ol'
HTML, but I understand why for consistency's sake (that is,
consistency with the "semantics" of developing and future
technologies) XHTML might be preferred.
If you can write that paragraph, you don't even begin to understand
what XHTML is, let alone the question of whether to use it.
On 15 May, 03:29, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.comwrote:
Using relative URLs is often not a good idea anyway, as it means that
things will break if you move pages around. I use absolute URLs (ie,
file paths relative to the document root) as a matter of course - it's
no harder to type, and it avoids having to change things later.
Hmm! I'd read that *absolute* paths are the ones which are not good
for "portability," should the need ever arise.
It's not a simple one-off situation.
For your situation here, where the assets are "local" to the page,
then stick with relative paths and URLs. If you move these things,
they're likely to move en masse (and the relative relation stays the
same).
If you're referring to "site-wide" assets, then use a URL that refers
to the server root, but still avoid using the hostname. This URL
should ideally relate to some virtual location on the server, so that
it has a short, simple path fragment in the URL. e.g.
<img src="/assets/our-logo.gif" >
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" src="/styles/site.css" >
It's quite possible that "site.css" actually lives in the directory /
app/apache0/vhost/AcmeCo/assets/May08-makeover/styles/
but the server config points the path fragment /styles/ straight to
it.
The problem starts when you have "shared" images that are used by a
number of pages. Do you treat these as "stable" site-wide assets, or
as mobile assets tied to a page? Your call, per job.
I'd also suggest ditching the "images" sub-directory too. It's a faff
to have to use it in the image paths on every page and it doesn't add
much. Certainly _don't_ think that a site needs one single directory
called "pages" and another called "images". You have file extensions
to describe this sort of format-based selection.
Instead structure your site to represent some logical presentation of
it, quite possibly one that can be mirrored directly into the URLs and
will then give the users a "sensible" conceptual structure by which to
navigate the site (this whole idea is more complicated than it looks
though, especially if you're using CMS). You ought to use plenty of
subdirectories to strucure things - splitting things up generally
works better than piling everything into one. At one extent, it's not
unreasonable to name every page index.htm, make _every_ page on the
site its own subdirectory. That way you never need a pagename in any
URL, you just use directory names alone and let the default document
mechanism handle the rest.
If you have fine-grained structure of directories, you don't need
"images" sub-directories to separate out the assets. Just place them
in the same directory as the HTML. Simpler.
On May 15, 2:13 am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
>
That's not generally true when referring to absolute URLs. It is true
when referring to absolute file paths, but that's a different thing
altogether - HTML and client-side scripting (such as Javascript)
*never* need absolute file paths. I suspect that you're being misled
by different usages of the word "absolute".
You deduce correctly: I've been talking about file paths all along,
but I see that you're referring to URLs...?? Yes, it's true that that
first src attribute is an URL
Then they're talking crap. Best to leave them, and find a webhost that
isn't trying to bamboozle you with false promises.
The interesting thing about them is that they never actually promise
anything, naturally enough...no, they suggest it, allowing you to
"fill in the blanks"...I must say, I've learned a lot about internet
marketing from them...sure, this is all "common knowledge" (even, in
some cases, "common sense") but as a newbie it was nice to have had it
all collected in one place, as it were...but time to be moving on,
you're right. I just figure a webhost should work around me, instead
of me around them....
Mark
--
Miscellaneous remarks athttp://Mark.Goodge.co.uk
"When your thoughts are too expensive to ever want to keep"
On May 15, 6:01 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.comwrote:
>
If you can write that paragraph, you don't even begin to understand
what XHTML is, let alone the question of whether to use it.
I don't know what you mean by "understand," but I understand enough
for my own purposes, and that's all I as a newbie can care about at
the present moment. I use it because it's web-standard (in the sense
of "W3C-recommended") and it may be important in the future -- and if
not, then no harm done; it'll still get parsed all right as regular
HTML.
On May 15, 2:13 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
>
It's not supported by any version of Internet Explorer.http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
--
Regards Chad.http://freewebdesignonline.org
Hmmm, so interesting! Thanks, wow what an eye-opener...but that link
seems to be concerned with IE 6...does IE 7 also still not support
XHTML??
Well, anyway, some real food for thought there...thanks again...wow,
what a gap between you folks on these newsgroups and the books I'm
reading!!
On May 17, 12:14 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
Prisoner at War wrote:
Hmmm, so interesting! Thanks, wow what an eye-opener...but that link
seems to be concerned with IE 6...does IE 7 also still not support
XHTML??
Yes it doesn't:
LOL! http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/demo.xhtml
XHTML 1.1 Demo
LOLOLOLOLOL!!
"Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie.
* The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try
again in a few
moments.
* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's
network
connection.
* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or
proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
[Try Again]"
<SNIP>
I still don't understand why you use a .sig if you want people to snip
it in their reply! This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Arthur |
last post by:
I've come across some strange xml, that I need to deal with, it looks
like this:-
<root>
<foo attr="1">Some random strange text.
<bar attr="2">blar</bar>
<bar attr="3">blar blar</bar>
<bar...
|
by: Paul Drummond |
last post by:
Hi all,
I am developing software for Linux Redhat9 and I have noticed some very
strange behaviour when throwing exceptions within a shared library.
All our exceptions are derived from...
|
by: Nick |
last post by:
hi, all
I just started to create my own website and I registered a new domain
from yahoo, and then I want to register a webhost plan. And how to use
this domain I registered? What I undertood...
|
by: syska |
last post by:
Hi,
I talked to a Microsoft person for about 4 month ago, and he said that
microsoft was developing a tool/program, so it was easier to deplay the
mssql database to the webhost.... at that time...
|
by: hugo_herrera |
last post by:
Hi there,
Anyone know of a webhost that provides an API that allows the website
code to automate the domain/subdomain/alias/email account creation? The
website we are looking to run generates...
|
by: Martin Joergensen |
last post by:
Hi,
I've encountered a really, *really*, REALLY strange error :-)
I have a for-loop and after 8 runs I get strange results...... I
mean: A really strange result....
I'm calculating...
|
by: SpreadTooThin |
last post by:
I have a list and I need to do a custom sort on it...
for example:
a = #Although not necessarily in order
def cmp(i,j): #to be defined in this thread.
a.sort(cmp)
print a
|
by: Dean Craig |
last post by:
I'm getting ready to build my first ASP.NET/SQL Server website that will be
hosted on some web host out there (long distance, different network). The
work I've done in the past (pre-.NET) was all...
|
by: Mague |
last post by:
Hey,
I would like to use my computer as a webhost. I have got apache and this works really well on my computer. I do not have a domain such as yet (mum and dad havn't braught it yet) and i cannot...
|
by: simon2x1 |
last post by:
first what is Gd library and second if i turn on my gd library on my
wamp serve in other to make a page display a resize image, what will i
turn on in my webhost to make that page display a resize...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
| | |
