resize iframe according to content
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Which is the best implementation of LISP family of languagesfor real world programming ?
Next: Note 1. ECMAScript. Bound functions.
From: Sean Kinsey on 15 Jun 2010 07:37 On Jun 14, 10:09 am, SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...(a)wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote: > Le 6/13/10 4:24 PM, Zarkas a crit : > > > I could see the reason not to use iframes 5 years ago when not all > > browsers supported it, but why not today? > > Because : > - not bookmarkable > - poor accessibility > - ugly ? mu All of these can easily be worked around if one chooses to. And seriously, 'ugly'? Was that the best you could do? For some reason it still amazes me that whenever someone even mentions 'iframe' (and a number of other things), you ignorants reply with 'don't use it' without having the faintest idea about the use case, the intentions, the requirements, the reason why the person in the first place chose to use an iframe etc.. Something is seriously wrong when its the same people who pose as the educated ones that behave as trolls. Don't you see that you are undermining your own 'authority' by doing so?
From: SAM on 15 Jun 2010 08:49 Le 6/15/10 1:37 PM, Sean Kinsey a �crit : > On Jun 14, 10:09 am, SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...(a)wanadoo.fr.invalid> > wrote: >> Le 6/13/10 4:24 PM, Zarkas a crit : >> >>> I could see the reason not to use iframes 5 years ago when not all >>> browsers supported it, but why not today? >> Because : >> - not bookmarkable >> - poor accessibility >> - ugly ? > > mu > > All of these can easily be worked around if one chooses to. Would the OP know how to do ? > And seriously, 'ugly'? Was that the best you could do? Horrible ! (better ?) > Don't you see that you are > undermining your own 'authority' by doing so? For my part, I do not claim any authority. -- sm
From: Dr J R Stockton on 16 Jun 2010 15:13 In comp.lang.javascript message <be99badb-99e0-409e-b997-fcafc5769b45(a)x2 1g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 15 Jun 2010 04:37:20, Sean Kinsey <okinsey(a)gmail.com> posted: >On Jun 14, 10:09�am, SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...(a)wanadoo.fr.invalid> >wrote: >> Le 6/13/10 4:24 PM, Zarkas a crit : >> >> > I could see the reason not to use iframes 5 years ago when not all >> > browsers supported it, but why not today? >> >> Because : >> - not bookmarkable >> - poor accessibility >> - ugly ? > >mu > >All of these can easily be worked around if one chooses to. And >seriously, 'ugly'? Was that the best you could do? > >For some reason it still amazes me that whenever someone even mentions >'iframe' (and a number of other things), >you ignorants reply with 'don't use it' without having the faintest >idea about the use case, the intentions, the requirements, the reason >why the person in the first place chose to use an iframe etc.. Agreed. It is very common for persons of limited education and intelligence (many articles in Usenet are written by one of those), knowing of one circumstance when something is inadvisable, to rant and rave against doing that in any circumstances. Take for example the suggestion that an iframe is visually ugly (which seems strange in the first instance); that cannot apply to a hidden iframe, and I have applications which would work, using an iframe, if that iframe were invisible. And, while commerce may insist on pretty displays, it is practicality that matters on technical pages. Also, the content of the iframe changes too rapidly for bookmarking to be practical. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006. <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links; <URL:http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm> clpdmFAQ; NOT <URL:http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/>: news:borland.* Guidelines
From: Eric Bednarz on 16 Jun 2010 20:28 Dr J R Stockton <reply1024(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes: <SMUGENTRY> > Agreed. It is very common for persons of limited education and > intelligence (many articles in Usenet are written by one of those), > knowing of one circumstance when something is inadvisable, to rant and > rave against doing that in any circumstances. </SMUGENTRY> Also, one of the better examples of recursion I have seen in this group.
From: Zarkas on 17 Jun 2010 03:14
Well, the reason I choose to use an iframe in this case was that I got some flash sideshow in the top of the page, and want to just change the page content below it according to what menu field they clicked on. If I just loaded a new page each time they clicked on a menu the slideshow would start over and it would ruin the flow. I wouldn't call the iframe "ugly" as you don't even notice it's there. The only problem is that little resize problem which seems to be pretty common and tons of way to deal with, none which I have tried seemed optimal. |