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: SAM on 17 Jun 2010 04:47 Le 6/16/10 9:13 PM, Dr J R Stockton a �crit : > 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); it's its used that is "uggly" specially if "resizing" :-( > that cannot apply to a hidden > iframe, and I have applications which would work, using an iframe, if > that iframe were invisible. as it was question of size why to speak of invisible ? The used of not visible frames or iframes for JS convenience is another problem, I don't think it was evoked in OP's question. > Also, the content of the iframe changes too rapidly for bookmarking > to be practical. Maybe But, once again, that didn't sound like in the question (resizing). -- sm
From: SAM on 17 Jun 2010 05:06 Le 6/17/10 9:14 AM, Zarkas a �crit : > 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 Ha! there we are ... a Flash commodity ... Interesting ... with my Flash blocker ;-) > 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. It would be interesting to have a look inline of the job in its actual state. Does file(s) loaded in the iframe have a css that could fix your problem avoiding to have to resize the iframe's space ? Without having seen the site I continue to think that a display in a div via Ajax could be more easily fixable (css are your friends). Certainly, Sean Kinsey will explain you the working out about bookmarks (since we are now talking about "menu") -- sm
From: Evertjan. on 17 Jun 2010 05:35
Zarkas wrote on 17 jun 2010 in comp.lang.javascript: > > Well, the reason I choose to use an iframe in this case What case? [please always quote on usenet] -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) |