iframe question
am 10.01.2008 19:41:14 von unknownPost removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
richard wrote:
>
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
richard wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:05:29 +1300, "Nik Coughlin"
>
>
>> richard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This simple code is seen as intended in IE and opera but not in FF?
>>> Why? What am I missing?
>> A clue.
>>
> asswipe you are.
Well Nik has a point here. We have no idea in what context ant of the
tiny snippet is within. No markup, no css, no *URL*! So why would you
think anyone would have any idea what is wrong with your code.
It is like saying there is a problem with my car, what could be the
trouble? Oh, and for details the color is blue.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"richard"
news:0m9do31ce32eg8v0kjf6h4h5erfhmj21lv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:40:38 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
>
>
>>richard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:05:29 +1300, "Nik Coughlin"
>>>
>>>
>>>> richard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This simple code is seen as intended in IE and opera but not in FF?
>>>>> Why? What am I missing?
>>>> A clue.
>>>>
>>> asswipe you are.
>>
>>Well Nik has a point here. We have no idea in what context ant of the
>>tiny snippet is within. No markup, no css, no *URL*! So why would you
>>think anyone would have any idea what is wrong with your code.
>>
>>It is like saying there is a problem with my car, what could be the
>>trouble? Oh, and for details the color is blue.
>
> What is it about an iframe that is so damn hard to understand?
> Everything I have in my code works except this? Why not? Why only in
> FF when IE and opera says it's ok?
> Is that to damn difficult for you morons to answer? I guess it must
> be.
> Up yours!
Well, the chances of getting any help are now 0. Well done. Pity, I thought
I could help.
*plonk*
richard wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:40:38 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
>
>
>> richard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:05:29 +1300, "Nik Coughlin"
>>>
>>>
>>>> richard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This simple code is seen as intended in IE and opera but not in FF?
>>>>> Why? What am I missing?
>>>> A clue.
>>>>
>>> asswipe you are.
>> Well Nik has a point here. We have no idea in what context ant of the
>> tiny snippet is within. No markup, no css, no *URL*! So why would you
>> think anyone would have any idea what is wrong with your code.
>>
>> It is like saying there is a problem with my car, what could be the
>> trouble? Oh, and for details the color is blue.
>
> What is it about an iframe that is so damn hard to understand?
> Everything I have in my code works except this? Why not? Why only in
> FF when IE and opera says it's ok?
> Is that to damn difficult for you morons to answer? I guess it must
> be.
> Up yours!
Brilliant!
We have no idea what any of your classes: aframe, a1frame, bframe,
b1frame, nor anything about the markup that either surround or contained
within your iframes. Don't your think that would be a wee bit important
to discover what it not be "seen as intended in IE and opera but not in FF"?
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article <0m9do31ce32eg8v0kjf6h4h5erfhmj21lv@4ax.com>,
richard
> What is it about an iframe that is so damn hard to understand?
> Everything I have in my code works except this? Why not? Why only in
> FF when IE and opera says it's ok?
> Is that to damn difficult for you morons to answer? I guess it must
> be.
> Up yours!
The difficulty is a matter of confidence in you. Will you read
what is said, will you understand it, will you engage with it,
will you say what you do follow and what you don't, will you show
some damn curiosity beyond the Neanderthalic grunting that you do
to this or that vague point or other, will you engage with people
on a level that is more than bam bam thank you mam for your ever
so private gains...
--
dorayme
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
richard wrote:
> All I want to know why is why is the code not working in FF?
> Internet Explorer works just fine.
> Opera works fine.
> Firefox refuses to accept it even though in other pages I have coded
> the precise same thing and it works fine.
> Even the iframe code on the working website is the same damn thing.
What code! You supply no code. Here, IFRAME elements works in both IE
and FF when the markup is valid. Period!
If it doesn't work for you, then you are making an error. Period!
Supply an example URL exhibiting your problem and we can show you where
your error is, else have fun debugging it yourself. Period!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
richard wrote:
> Problem solved.
> Apparently Firefox does not like the fact that a tag name is being
> used a file folder name.
Wrong, guess again.
Works just fine in FF.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
"richard"
news:0efdo35lq1vvt3pm4qolf3730db3fvgu18@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:38:27 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
>
>
>>richard wrote:
>>> Problem solved.
>>> Apparently Firefox does not like the fact that a tag name is being
>>> used a file folder name.
>>
>>Wrong, guess again.
>>
>>
>>
>>Works just fine in FF.
>
> Maybe for you, but not for me.
If it doesn't work for you then you have made an error elsewhere. Somewhere
you are dilligently keeping hidden from us.
Firefox would have no bloody idea what a "folder name" is. Nor would it
care.
--
Richard.
richard wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:38:27 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
>
>
>> richard wrote:
>>> Problem solved.
>>> Apparently Firefox does not like the fact that a tag name is being
>>> used a file folder name.
>> Wrong, guess again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Works just fine in FF.
>
> Maybe for you, but not for me.
Then *you* have made a mistake. You can use any element name within a
URL in FF, or any other browser.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:49:00 -0500, richard
>All I want to know why is why is the code not working in FF?
Because you, Richard Bullis The Stupid, are simply too damn pig-fucking
ignorant to even begin to understand HTML.
Out of all the arrogant tosspot truck-drivers posting to Usenet, you
make even Conor look like a genius.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:39:33 GMT
Andy Dingley scribed:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:49:00 -0500, richard
>
>>All I want to know why is why is the code not working in FF?
>
> Because you, Richard Bullis The Stupid, are simply too damn pig-fucking
> ignorant to even begin to understand HTML.
>
> Out of all the arrogant tosspot truck-drivers posting to Usenet, you
> make even Conor look like a genius.
Now now... Perhaps he's one of those eccentrics who are really smart in
some areas but obfuscate it by a show of confusion in others.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:39:33 GMT
> Andy Dingley scribed:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:49:00 -0500, richard
> >
> >>All I want to know why is why is the code not working in FF?
> >
> > Because you, Richard Bullis The Stupid, are simply too damn pig-fucking
> > ignorant to even begin to understand HTML.
> >
> > Out of all the arrogant tosspot truck-drivers posting to Usenet, you
> > make even Conor look like a genius.
>
> Now now... Perhaps he's one of those eccentrics who are really smart in
> some areas but obfuscate it by a show of confusion in others.
A perfectly good dressing down by AD deserves better than this,
Boji. Why on earth would someone want to obfuscate their
smartness in one area by showing confusion in another? If they
were smart, they would either not obfuscate in any area or they
would obfuscate *in* the area they are trying to hide their
cleverness or they would obfuscate for an entirely different
purpose.
I think I know why you are so confused about this but I cannot
confirm it until you send me that scoop, that sample of your
brain for tests.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:09:08
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> >>All I want to know why is why is the code not working in FF?
>> >
>> > Because you, Richard Bullis The Stupid, are simply too damn
>> > pig-fucking ignorant to even begin to understand HTML.
>> >
>> > Out of all the arrogant tosspot truck-drivers posting to Usenet,
>> > you make even Conor look like a genius.
>>
>> Now now... Perhaps he's one of those eccentrics who are really smart
>> in some areas but obfuscate it by a show of confusion in others.
>
> A perfectly good dressing down by AD deserves better than this,
> Boji. Why on earth would someone want to obfuscate their
> smartness in one area by showing confusion in another? If they
> were smart, they would either not obfuscate in any area or they
> would obfuscate *in* the area they are trying to hide their
> cleverness or they would obfuscate for an entirely different
> purpose.
>
> I think I know why you are so confused about this but I cannot
> confirm it until you send me that scoop, that sample of your
> brain for tests.
You are so critical. And btw, your post is seriously off-topic.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:09:08
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> >>All I want to know why is why is the code not working in FF?
> >> >
> >> > Because you, Richard Bullis The Stupid, are simply too damn
> >> > pig-fucking ignorant to even begin to understand HTML.
> >> >
> >> > Out of all the arrogant tosspot truck-drivers posting to Usenet,
> >> > you make even Conor look like a genius.
> >>
> >> Now now... Perhaps he's one of those eccentrics who are really smart
> >> in some areas but obfuscate it by a show of confusion in others.
> >
> > A perfectly good dressing down by AD deserves better than this,
> > Boji. Why on earth would someone want to obfuscate their
> > smartness in one area by showing confusion in another? If they
> > were smart, they would either not obfuscate in any area or they
> > would obfuscate *in* the area they are trying to hide their
> > cleverness or they would obfuscate for an entirely different
> > purpose.
> >
> > I think I know why you are so confused about this but I cannot
> > confirm it until you send me that scoop, that sample of your
> > brain for tests.
>
> You are so critical. And btw, your post is seriously off-topic.
I know. But when I have qualms about it - and I do - I dismiss
them where you are concerned because of your sexist nonsense and
because of your absolute wilfullness in failing to insert a
sharpened teaspoon through your ear and getting me that scoop I
need for testing.
You see, you are interesting to me not because you make
occasional mistakes - who doesn't? No, it is because of a
systematic pattern that makes me think you are actually from a
planet that my own planet has been INVESTIGATING. I cannot say
any more at this stage.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:55:23
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> > A perfectly good dressing down by AD deserves better than this,
>> > Boji. Why on earth would someone want to obfuscate their
>> > smartness in one area by showing confusion in another? If they
>> > were smart, they would either not obfuscate in any area or they
>> > would obfuscate *in* the area they are trying to hide their
>> > cleverness or they would obfuscate for an entirely different
>> > purpose.
>> >
>> > I think I know why you are so confused about this but I cannot
>> > confirm it until you send me that scoop, that sample of your
>> > brain for tests.
>>
>> You are so critical. And btw, your post is seriously off-topic.
>
> I know. But when I have qualms about it - and I do - I dismiss
> them where you are concerned because of your sexist nonsense and
> because of your absolute wilfullness in failing to insert a
> sharpened teaspoon through your ear and getting me that scoop I
> need for testing.
I'm not a sexist, I'm a realistic. Sure, sometimes I joke around and if
women were advanced enough to have a well-developed sense of humor, they
would realize it. As it is, one must give them some latitude.
> You see, you are interesting to me not because you make
> occasional mistakes - who doesn't? No, it is because of a
> systematic pattern that makes me think you are actually from a
> planet that my own planet has been INVESTIGATING. I cannot say
> any more at this stage.
Ahh, I used to be an adamant science-fiction buff in my younger days.
For years, the only fiction is read was sf. Yesterday, I re-watched
"Forbidden Planet" (-seen it like 100 times) and still enjoyed it after
all this time.
Anyway, my planet is infested with inimical life-forms that don't seem to
do it much good at all. Any ideas for a cure?
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
In article
Neredbojias
> Anyway, my planet is infested with inimical life-forms that don't seem to
> do it much good at all. Any ideas for a cure?
I would need to know more about it. But please do not send me
details unless you accompany them with a small contribution in
$US. I am actually designing a rat trap at the moment, it might
be able to be adapted for you. I saw a most wonderfully clever
concept in the local hardware shop for a mouse trap (it captures
them unhurt rather than kills them). So... I have been thinking a
bit about these matters.
--
dorayme
On 14 Jan, 04:24, Neredbojias
> > Because you, Richard Bullis The Stupid, are simply too damn pig-fucking
> > ignorant to even begin to understand HTML.
> Now now... Perhaps he's one of those eccentrics who are really smart in
> some areas but obfuscate it by a show of confusion in others.
No, he's just _really_ stupid. We've tried. We've all tried. It really
is like casting pearls before swine.
Richard Bullis is just what happens when you let twins marry:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7182817.stm
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:21:25
GMT Andy Dingley scribed:
> On 14 Jan, 04:24, Neredbojias
>
>> > Because you, Richard Bullis The Stupid, are simply too damn
>> > pig-fucking ignorant to even begin to understand HTML.
>
>> Now now... Perhaps he's one of those eccentrics who are really smart
>> in some areas but obfuscate it by a show of confusion in others.
>
> No, he's just _really_ stupid. We've tried. We've all tried. It really
> is like casting pearls before swine.
>
> Richard Bullis is just what happens when you let twins marry:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7182817.stm
Geez, that article's like...scary. I don't think I want to know any
more.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:24:43
GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article
> Neredbojias
>
>> Anyway, my planet is infested with inimical life-forms that don't
>> seem to do it much good at all. Any ideas for a cure?
>
> I would need to know more about it. But please do not send me
> details unless you accompany them with a small contribution in
> $US. I am actually designing a rat trap at the moment, it might
> be able to be adapted for you. I saw a most wonderfully clever
> concept in the local hardware shop for a mouse trap (it captures
> them unhurt rather than kills them).
Uh huh. One should always be kind to the critters one exterminates.
> So... I have been thinking a
> bit about these matters.
Oooh, ho ho ho... Don't think - you might get into trouble...
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.