«

Hallo,
I use a frameset and want to determine the target frame for a postback on
the server. I know frames and server side code is difficult but in my
situation there is no alternative to frames.
Thanks, Thorsten

Thorsten Tarrach wrote:

> I use a frameset

I'm so sorry.

> and want to determine the target frame for a postback on
> the server.

A postback?

The only ways to determine which frame a webpage will open in are the target
attribute and JavaScript - both of which have to be set before the request
for the new document is made.

> I know frames and server side code is difficult but in my
> situation there is no alternative to frames.

Unlikely.


--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

"David Dorward" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ce62oa$igs$1$...
> > I know frames and server side code is difficult but in my
> > situation there is no alternative to frames.
>
> Unlikely.

On the left side there are results displayed. When you click one details are
shown on the right. Without frames this means that the used have to scroll
down the result list again after each reload.

Thorsten Tarrach wrote:

> On the left side there are results displayed. When you click one details
> are shown on the right. Without frames this means that the used have to
> scroll down the result list again after each reload.

position: fixed;

(with JavaScript hacks to fake support for it in certain previous generation
browsers - like IE 6)

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

Thorsten Tarrach wrote:

> On the left side there are results displayed. When you click one details
> are shown on the right. Without frames this means that the used have to
> scroll down the result list again after each reload.

<a href="page.cgi?result=1234#result1234">

Along with some position: fixed (and JavaScript hackery for last generation
browsers like IE6) to show the details on screen.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

>"David Dorward" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:ce62oa$igs$1$...
>> > I know frames and server side code is difficult but in my
>> > situation there is no alternative to frames.

>> Unlikely.

"Thorsten Tarrach" <> wrote:
>On the left side there are results displayed. When you click one details are
>shown on the right. Without frames this means that the used have to scroll
>down the result list again after each reload.

Look. You might as well forget about anything to do with frames & asking this
bunch. "I'm so sorry" & "you'll see" is just about all you can get out of
them... Not a list of what is so bad about them.


....D.

That's the first good answer I get
I think sometimes frames are necessary and then I'll use them.

....D. wrote:

> Look. You might as well forget about anything to do with frames & asking
> this bunch. "I'm so sorry" & "you'll see" is just about all you can get
> out of them... Not a list of what is so bad about them.

See the threads "The actual limitations and uses of html frames" and
"browser & displaying of frames" - both of which cover the why in some
detail and both of which were started in the past two weeks.

See also suitable Google Groups searches on this newsgroup, and general
Google searches.

Please also don't misrepresent the people who frequent this newsgroup with
statements such as the above. While my opinions of frames may have been
made clear in the earlier post - the question posed WAS answered.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

>...D. wrote:
>> Look. You might as well forget about anything to do with frames & asking
>> this bunch. "I'm so sorry" & "you'll see" is just about all you can get
>> out of them... Not a list of what is so bad about them.

David Dorward <> wrote:
>See the threads "The actual limitations and uses of html frames" and
>"browser & displaying of frames" - both of which cover the why in some
>detail and both of which were started in the past two weeks.

>See also suitable Google Groups searches on this newsgroup, and general
>Google searches.

>Please also don't misrepresent the people who frequent this newsgroup with
>statements such as the above. While my opinions of frames may have been
>made clear in the earlier post - the question posed WAS answered.

First, I am deleting this newsgroup, so don't bother to answer.

In another thread I just posted the same thing - in the space & typing time
you just took to post your "go search for yourself" reply, you could have
explained (one line generalities) to me 4 or 5 things that are so bad about
frames.

I posted two basics I've seen, - (1) a guy coming in from a search engine
could end up in a frame (no problem, an out, a re-launch, in each frame. Or
(2) some browsers (from when - 1995??) cannot use frames, or a non-computer
like a cell phone cannot use them - again no problem. In fact I'd welcome the
"filter" keeping out people doing the I-net with a cell phone. Still I'd
probably have a basic ugly no-frames page for the one in 1000 (how many??)
that can't use frames. Oh yeah - (3), someone wanting to print something
might not get what they thought they chose. There's a way to help that
problem out too... of course these simple things must not be why frames are
so evil. But I'll find out elsewhere.

....D.

....D. <d@no_usenet_email..org> wrote:

> First, I am deleting this newsgroup, so don't bother to answer.

Promises, promises. You already promised to do so in an earlier posting.
Let's just hope that you keep using the _same_ forged From field so that
we can, effectively, fulfill your promise when you don't do that.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html