need help using javascript to target a frame!

First off, please excuse the crossposting--I really need an answer quickly.

I have a decent amount of experience with html but not javascript. Currently
I'm using dreamweaver to do a photo gallery where I have a whole bunch of
thumbnail pics within an iframe. These thumnail pics are to swap an image in
the parent frame with whichever thumbnail was clicked. I assigned a name to
the pic in the parent frame which is to get replaced (i.e. "viewer") and I'm
using dreamweaver's built-in js code to accomplish the swap. Here is an
example of the code that dreamweaver generated:

<a href="#" onClick="MM_swapImage('viewer','','buildingcorner. jpg',0)"><img
src="buildingcorner.jpg" name="Image1" width="142" height="100" border=0
id="Image1"></a>

the swapimage refers to a function in the head section of the page, but I
don't think there is anything wrong with this as I've used it before without
any problems, but never with frames involved. I did manually change the
section within the parenthesis since dreamweaver doesn't seem to be able to
target other frames. My question is basically, how can I make this code
work. I tried modifying it a bit, like 'parent.viewer', but that did
nothing. What can I do to make this work--help would be greatly
appreciated--thanks.

Keith

kegepet
at
nyc dot
rr dot
com

In post <rICdne214OFzpGSjXTWcpg@giganews.com>
TheKeith said...

> I have a whole bunch of thumbnail pics within an iframe.

iframes are just as evil as frames

http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzo...eb/frames.html
http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/frames/

> <a href="#"

a fragment identifier separator isn't going to do anything for people
without JS.

f'ups alt.html

--
brucie a. blackford. 25/June/2003 05:03:59 pm kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/

I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good design
purpose for the site I'm doing. I find pop-up windows far more evil and
annoying and every pretentious piece of **** site under the sun uses them in
some form or another. If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the time, like
flash and stuff? Are they not evil?

Anyway, here is what I'm working on (not finished)--maybe someone can do a
view source and give me some answers.

http://www.kworks.us/photography/




"brucie" <brucie@loser.brucies.com> wrote in message
news:bdbhm2$oh3qm$1@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
> In post <rICdne214OFzpGSjXTWcpg@giganews.com>
> TheKeith said...
>
> > I have a whole bunch of thumbnail pics within an iframe.
>
> iframes are just as evil as frames
>
> http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzo...eb/frames.html
> http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/frames/
>
> > <a href="#"
>
> a fragment identifier separator isn't going to do anything for people
> without JS.
>
> f'ups alt.html
>
> --
> brucie a. blackford. 25/June/2003 05:03:59 pm kilo.
> http://loser.brucies.com/

TheKeith wrote:
> I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good design
> purpose for the site I'm doing.

Your webpage uses a frameset to render a single frame. Why in the world
would you want or need to do that?


I find pop-up windows far more evil and
> annoying and every pretentious piece of **** site under the sun uses them in
> some form or another.

I filter a wide and very large majority of unrequested popups. I do not
filter requested popups: I do not want to filter them. You do not seem
to be making any distinction here. Most people use these days popup
killer software.

If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
> then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the time, like
> flash and stuff? Are they not evil?
>

If A is evil, then B being just as much/more evil will not make A any
better or any more acceptable, justifiable.
Your arguments are extremely weak. You do not explain the differences
between A and B from a webpage design and usability perspective either.
Your arguments can only serve to promote mediocrity, low-level design
manners.
Your posting manners (top-posting and cross-posting in newsgroups for no
good reasons) are very much a reason to killfile you.

> Anyway, here is what I'm working on (not finished)--maybe someone can do a
> view source and give me some answers.
>

1- Avoid frames and iframes: there is absolutely nothing in your webpage
which justifies the recourse to frames and iframe
2- use valid markup code and validate your markup code
3- avoid using tables (nested tables are even worse) for layout and
positioning purposes: use tables for tabular data
4- Start reading FAQs (technical ones)
5- Open your mind and just stop claiming you have good experience with
HTML. Throughout history, the human spirit always worked like a parachute.
6- Do not use javascript functions that you do not understand

> http://www.kworks.us/photography/
>
>

Brucie replied in an adequate manner to you. Whether you are receptive
to his opinion is up to you. A wide majority of experts in webdesign do
not recommend usage of frames as they imply implementation burden and
difficulties impossible to overcome by normal means. Brucie gave you
links to start reading. How many more links, articles, columns more do
you need? From how many sources, from which sources? Microsoft MSDN?
Netscape DevEdge? WDG? J. Nielsen?
Multi-documents in a webpage is deprecated in more advanced and recent
DTDs: that's not an opinion but an established fact written in W3C TRs.

Don't cross-post if you can not justify cross-posting. Stop top-posting.
Read the FAQs.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/

>
>
> "brucie" <brucie@loser.brucies.com> wrote in message
> news:bdbhm2$oh3qm$1@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>In post <rICdne214OFzpGSjXTWcpg@giganews.com>
>>TheKeith said...
>>
>>
>>>I have a whole bunch of thumbnail pics within an iframe.
>>
>>iframes are just as evil as frames
>>
>>http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
>>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzo...eb/frames.html
>>http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/frames/
>>
>>
>>><a href="#"
>>
>>a fragment identifier separator isn't going to do anything for people
>>without JS.
>>
>>f'ups alt.html
>>
>>--
>>brucie a. blackford. 25/June/2003 05:03:59 pm kilo.
>>http://loser.brucies.com/
>
>
>

"DU" <drunclear@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdcmfg$cnj$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
> TheKeith wrote:
> > I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good design
> > purpose for the site I'm doing.
>
> Your webpage uses a frameset to render a single frame. Why in the world
> would you want or need to do that?

just an easy way of eliminating scrollbars, which when I'm done with the
page, will have an evident purpose.



> I find pop-up windows far more evil and
> > annoying and every pretentious piece of **** site under the sun uses
them in
> > some form or another.
>
> I filter a wide and very large majority of unrequested popups. I do not
> filter requested popups: I do not want to filter them. You do not seem
> to be making any distinction here. Most people use these days popup
> killer software.

of course, the unrequested ones are obvious impositions, but I was actually
talking about the sites that have "legitimate" ues for pop-up, such as for
design purposes. These, I believe are far worse than frames, since they are
opening another window altogether. At least frames keep it within a single
window.


> If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
> > then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the time,
like
> > flash and stuff? Are they not evil?
> >
>
> If A is evil, then B being just as much/more evil will not make A any
> better or any more acceptable, justifiable.
> Your arguments are extremely weak. You do not explain the differences
> between A and B from a webpage design and usability perspective either.
> Your arguments can only serve to promote mediocrity, low-level design
> manners.

my point was that neither flash nor frames are inherently evil, and I'm a
bit tired of the frames are evil bs. If a designer wants to use them for
some specific reason and not doing so in an intrusive way, then there's
nothing wrong with that, and you shouldn't presume to know what qualifies as
good design versus bad design--who are you? I didn't post my initial message
to get people's opinion about my use of frames, I was asking about how to do
a very specific thing.


> Your posting manners (top-posting and cross-posting in newsgroups for no
> good reasons) are very much a reason to killfile you.

this is a legitimate cross-posting--this is what cross-posting is meant for.
I posted the message to applicable groups only. Top-posting I couldn't care
less about. If I felt a need to reply to the individual parts of the above
message, I would have, but I didn't. You can killfile me if you want, in
fact, I wish you would. I don't need your design advice nor your how posting
to the ng's advice, seeing as I've been doing it for close to ten years now.


> > Anyway, here is what I'm working on (not finished)--maybe someone can do
a
> > view source and give me some answers.


> 1- Avoid frames and iframes: there is absolutely nothing in your webpage
> which justifies the recourse to frames and iframe

page is not done.


> 2- use valid markup code and validate your markup code
> 3- avoid using tables (nested tables are even worse) for layout and
> positioning purposes: use tables for tabular data

why? This makes no sense at all.

> 4- Start reading FAQs (technical ones)
> 5- Open your mind and just stop claiming you have good experience with
> HTML. Throughout history, the human spirit always worked like a parachute.
> 6- Do not use javascript functions that you do not understand

that's what dreamweaver is good for--I don't need to understand what it does
necessarily. Just like I don't need to understand how to develop games in
order to play them or how to write applications like photoshop in order to
use them.

I think someone else needs to open their mind.

> > http://www.kworks.us/photography/
> >
> >
>
> Brucie replied in an adequate manner to you. Whether you are receptive
> to his opinion is up to you. A wide majority of experts in webdesign do
> not recommend usage of frames as they imply implementation burden and
> difficulties impossible to overcome by normal means. Brucie gave you
> links to start reading. How many more links, articles, columns more do
> you need? From how many sources, from which sources? Microsoft MSDN?
> Netscape DevEdge? WDG? J. Nielsen?
> Multi-documents in a webpage is deprecated in more advanced and recent
> DTDs: that's not an opinion but an established fact written in W3C TRs.
>
> Don't cross-post if you can not justify cross-posting. Stop top-posting.
> Read the FAQs.
>
> DU
> --
> Javascript and Browser bugs:
> http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
>
> >
> >
> > "brucie" <brucie@loser.brucies.com> wrote in message
> > news:bdbhm2$oh3qm$1@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >>In post <rICdne214OFzpGSjXTWcpg@giganews.com>
> >>TheKeith said...
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have a whole bunch of thumbnail pics within an iframe.
> >>
> >>iframes are just as evil as frames
> >>
> >>http://html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
> >>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/l_vajzo...eb/frames.html
> >>http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/frames/
> >>
> >>
> >>><a href="#"
> >>
> >>a fragment identifier separator isn't going to do anything for people
> >>without JS.
> >>
> >>f'ups alt.html
> >>
> >>--
> >>brucie a. blackford. 25/June/2003 05:03:59 pm kilo.
> >>http://loser.brucies.com/
> >
> >
> >
>

"DU" <drunclear@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdcs4l$ef1$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
> TheKeith wrote:
> > "DU" <drunclear@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bdcmfg$cnj$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
> >
> >>TheKeith wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good
design
> >>>purpose for the site I'm doing.
> >>
> >>Your webpage uses a frameset to render a single frame. Why in the world
> >>would you want or need to do that?
> >
> >
> > just an easy way of eliminating scrollbars, which when I'm done with the
> > page, will have an evident purpose.
> >
>
> If content overflows window inner viewport dimensions, then you want
> your page to clip content. That is what you propose and request here.
> From an usability and accessibility perspective, your design is
> anti-user and anti-accessibility.
> What's inherently wrong with scrollbars? Please elaborate.
> Don't scrollbars visually notify users that some of the content
> overflows the window dimensions? Don't they allow users to access and
> reach clipped content? Are they a standard fallback mechanism promoting
> usability and accessibility?

I don't want any content clipped--it will hurt my design. This way, you will
be forced to have the window opened to at least certain minimum dimensions
so that all I want visible on the screen at one time is.



> >>I find pop-up windows far more evil and
> >>
> >>>annoying and every pretentious piece of **** site under the sun uses
> >
> > them in
> >
> >>>some form or another.
> >>
> >>I filter a wide and very large majority of unrequested popups. I do not
> >>filter requested popups: I do not want to filter them. You do not seem
> >>to be making any distinction here. Most people use these days popup
> >>killer software.
> >
> >
> > of course, the unrequested ones are obvious impositions, but
>
> ... but you did not make any distinction when you - only you - brought
> up the issue of popup and started condemning popups altogether. You
> reproached to Brucie what you actually did with the issue of popups: no
> relativity, no demonstration, no explanation of arguments from an
> usability perspective, no concrete case on which to discuss such issue.
>
>
> I was actually
> > talking about the sites that have "legitimate" ues for pop-up, such as
for
> > design purposes. These, I believe are far worse than frames, since they
are
> > opening another window altogether.
>
> If the design meets implementation and requirement specs, then why do
> you denigrate these?

precisely



Your arguments are illogical here. And again, your
> comparison does not serve any concrete discussion regarding your initial
> post about your webpage.
> Shouting frames can be a good design decision still does not justify the
> use of frames in *your* webpage. Discussing popups has nothing,
> absolutely nothing to do with the use of frames in your page.

just like imparting your two-cents about frames has nothing to do with my
initial post, ok mr. newsgroup etiquette who made no mention of using the
"OT:" in the subject line.



> At least frames keep it within a single
> > window.
> >
> >
> >
> >>If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
> >>
> >>>then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the time,
> >
> > like
> >
> >>>flash and stuff? Are they not evil?
> >>>
> >>
> >>If A is evil, then B being just as much/more evil will not make A any
> >>better or any more acceptable, justifiable.
> >>Your arguments are extremely weak. You do not explain the differences
> >>between A and B from a webpage design and usability perspective either.
> >>Your arguments can only serve to promote mediocrity, low-level design
> >>manners.
> >
> >
> > my point was that neither flash nor frames are inherently evil, and I'm
a
> > bit tired of the frames are evil bs. If a designer wants to use them for
> > some specific reason and not doing so in an intrusive way, then there's
> > nothing wrong with that, and you shouldn't presume to know what
qualifies as
> > good design versus bad design--who are you?
>
> I claim and repeat loud and clear that there is nothing in your webpage
> that justifies a frameset for a single frame with a iframe with nested
> tables across all over. Now, it's up to you to proceed from that like a
> grown up.

let's say for example I wanted to create a web page without standard
scrollbars and within it, to create a 750x400 size block with scrollable
thumbnails in a left column and a viewer in the right. Which way would you
go about doing it?


> I didn't post my initial message
> > to get people's opinion about my use of frames, I was asking about how
to do
> > a very specific thing.
> >
>
> No. You cross-posted an assistance request to several newsgroups
> regarding an undefined javascript function...

Not knowing javascript, I mistakenly didn't include the function in my
post--SORRY!

regarding an
> unspecified webpage.

Because my web page hadn't been up yet.


> >>Your posting manners (top-posting and cross-posting in newsgroups for no
> >>good reasons) are very much a reason to killfile you.
> >
> >
> > this is a legitimate cross-posting
>
> If so, then why did you start with excuses? Did you post this:
> "First off, please excuse the crossposting--I really need an answer
> quickly."

because I know the newsgroups are full of ****heads, whose opinions I really
didn't want to hear ;-)



> What is in your mind the relation between cross-posting to 5 newsgroups
> and getting a quick answer? Would cross-posting to 20 newsgroups get you
> faster answers?

yes as a matter of fact.


Would you like to get many quick but wrong solution
> proposals? Would that fit your expectations?

better than getting the replies of anal and utterly unhelpful assholes, who
get their kicks out of imposing their self-righteous opinions on those they
deem lesser than they are.

In post <Nq2cnVRxmuQeUGSjXTWcpw@giganews.com>
TheKeith said...

> Anyway, here is what I'm working on (not finished)--maybe someone can do a
> view source and give me some answers.
>
> http://www.kworks.us/photography/

a blank page.

please don't toppost
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

--
brucie a. blackford. 26/June/2003 07:12:56 am kilo.
http://loser.brucies.com/

"DU" <drunclear@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdd2tf$h4r$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
> TheKeith wrote:
> > "DU" <drunclear@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bdcs4l$ef1$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
> >
> >>TheKeith wrote:
> >>
> >>>"DU" <drunclear@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:bdcmfg$cnj$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>TheKeith wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good
> >
> > design
> >
> >>>>>purpose for the site I'm doing.
> >>>>
> >>>>Your webpage uses a frameset to render a single frame. Why in the
world
> >>>>would you want or need to do that?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>just an easy way of eliminating scrollbars, which when I'm done with
the
> >>>page, will have an evident purpose.
> >>>
> >>
> >>If content overflows window inner viewport dimensions, then you want
> >>your page to clip content. That is what you propose and request here.
> >> From an usability and accessibility perspective, your design is
> >>anti-user and anti-accessibility.
> >>What's inherently wrong with scrollbars? Please elaborate.
> >>Don't scrollbars visually notify users that some of the content
> >>overflows the window dimensions? Don't they allow users to access and
> >>reach clipped content? Are they a standard fallback mechanism promoting
> >>usability and accessibility?
> >
> >
> > I don't want any content clipped--it will hurt my design.
>
> But if it is, then content will not be accessible because scrollbars
> will have been removed by your code, because of your requirements,
> because of your will.

no content will be inaccessible, provided the user's browser is open enough
to allow for content 750 pixels wide by 400 pixels high--perfectly
reasonable in my book, as I don't know anyone who doesn't have their screen
res set to at least 800x600, and if you don't, chances are you're not gonna
be able to handle a lot of other sites very well either.



> This way, you will
> > be forced to have the window opened to at least certain minimum
dimensions
> > so that all I want visible on the screen at one time is.
> >
>
> This way, you will force your visitors to comply with undefined,
> unspecified dimension requirements: no one can claim you have a site
> promoting usability and content accessibility.

are you related to martha stewart


> You still have not answered me on 4 questions. What's inherently wrong
> with scrollbars?

I never said anything was wrong with scrollbars did I? No, in fact, I'm
using them.


>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>I find pop-up windows far more evil and
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>annoying and every pretentious piece of **** site under the sun uses
> >>>
> >>>them in
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>some form or another.
> >>>>
> >>>>I filter a wide and very large majority of unrequested popups. I do
not
> >>>>filter requested popups: I do not want to filter them. You do not seem
> >>>>to be making any distinction here. Most people use these days popup
> >>>>killer software.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>of course, the unrequested ones are obvious impositions, but
> >>
> >>... but you did not make any distinction when you - only you - brought
> >>up the issue of popup and started condemning popups altogether. You
> >>reproached to Brucie what you actually did with the issue of popups: no
> >>relativity, no demonstration, no explanation of arguments from an
> >>usability perspective, no concrete case on which to discuss such issue.
> >>
> >>
> >>I was actually
> >>
> >>>talking about the sites that have "legitimate" ues for pop-up, such as
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>design purposes. These, I believe are far worse than frames, since they
> >
> > are
> >
> >>>opening another window altogether.
> >>
> >>If the design meets implementation and requirement specs, then why do
> >>you denigrate these?
> >
> >
> > precisely
> >
> >
> >
> > Your arguments are illogical here. And again, your
> >
> >>comparison does not serve any concrete discussion regarding your initial
> >>post about your webpage.
> >>Shouting frames can be a good design decision still does not justify the
> >>use of frames in *your* webpage. Discussing popups has nothing,
> >>absolutely nothing to do with the use of frames in your page.
> >
> >
> > just like imparting your two-cents about frames has nothing to do with
my
> > initial post, ok mr. newsgroup etiquette who made no mention of using
the
> > "OT:" in the subject line.
> >
> >
>
> My 2 cents opinion was about your frameset having a single frame
> embedding an iframe with nested tables across and all over: that was my
> nr 1 issue with you.
>
> The cross-posting, popup, scrollbars, top-posting (and now flash) issues
> were secondary and were all initially brought up
> by you,
> only by you,
> because of you.

and the acceptability of using frames was all secondary too, so why don't
you go annoy brucie.



> Believe me: I really do not like etiquette discussions. I know some
> others are much more stiff and rigid on such. But often poor posting
> manners reveal a poor webpage/website designer as well: if he can't
> introduce and present the issues involved in a single post, how and why
> would you expect him to do better with a website? If a poster has
> like-it-or-not manners in a newsgroup, why would you expect him to treat
> his website visitors any better?

you *are* related to martha stewart!



> >>At least frames keep it within a single
> >>
> >>>window.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If frames are evil because of compatiblity issues,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>then what about the tons of other technologies being used all the
time,
> >>>
> >>>like
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>flash and stuff? Are they not evil?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>If A is evil, then B being just as much/more evil will not make A any
> >>>>better or any more acceptable, justifiable.
> >>>>Your arguments are extremely weak. You do not explain the differences
> >>>>between A and B from a webpage design and usability perspective
either.
> >>>>Your arguments can only serve to promote mediocrity, low-level design
> >>>>manners.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>my point was that neither flash nor frames are inherently evil, and I'm
> >
> > a
> >
> >>>bit tired of the frames are evil bs. If a designer wants to use them
for
> >>>some specific reason and not doing so in an intrusive way, then there's
> >>>nothing wrong with that, and you shouldn't presume to know what
> >
> > qualifies as
> >
> >>>good design versus bad design--who are you?
> >>
> >>I claim and repeat loud and clear that there is nothing in your webpage
> >>that justifies a frameset for a single frame with a iframe with nested
> >>tables across all over. Now, it's up to you to proceed from that like a
> >>grown up.
> >
> >
> > let's say for example I wanted to create a web page without standard
> > scrollbars and within it, to create a 750x400 size block with scrollable
> > thumbnails in a left column and a viewer in the right. Which way would
you
> > go about doing it?
> >
>
> That should have been your initial post. A clear concise description of
> your webpage situation with the least number of rigid constraining
> requirements and posted in alt.html newsgroup only. We're back to square
> 1 in "how to post in newsgroup" FAQ here.

Actually what I did was simpler. I posted a little piece of dreamweaver's
js, in the hopes that someone in the applicable ng's I posted to, would be
able to tell me, "change this..." and it would have been done with, but no,
people like you have to complicate matters and police newsgroups, trying to
force everyone into compliance with what they consider to be proper.



> Here I don't see why scrollbars should not appear if
> content overflows windows inner viewport dimensions. As far as I can
> understand you, the 750x400 size block you're referring to is your
> document inner dimensions.
>
> >
> >
> >>I didn't post my initial message
> >>
> >>>to get people's opinion about my use of frames, I was asking about how
> >
> > to do
> >
> >>>a very specific thing.
> >>>
> >>
> >>No. You cross-posted an assistance request to several newsgroups
> >>regarding an undefined javascript function...
> >
> >
> > Not knowing javascript, I mistakenly didn't include the function in my
> > post--SORRY!
> >
> > regarding an
> >
> >>unspecified webpage.
> >
> >
> > Because my web page hadn't been up yet.
> >
>
> Then maybe it would have been a good idea to post (cross-post or not -
> that's another issue) your message of urgent assistance request once
> your web page was up.
> Maybe your expectations from cross-posting were unrealistic. Maybe you
> expected a lot from a lot of people.
>
> >
> >
> >>>>Your posting manners (top-posting and cross-posting in newsgroups for
no
> >>>>good reasons) are very much a reason to killfile you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>this is a legitimate cross-posting
> >>
> >>If so, then why did you start with excuses? Did you post this:
> >>"First off, please excuse the crossposting--I really need an answer
> >>quickly."
> >
> >
> > because I know the newsgroups are full of ****heads, whose opinions I
really
> > didn't want to hear ;-)
> >
>
> If your cross-posting was legitimate, then why excuse yourself? Your
> first sentence stroke me as inconsequent, incoherent, self-defeating.
> The reason you bring up is most likely not the right one either: I think
> it has all to do with you not knowing when cross-posting is adequate,
> suitable and justified.

and just when is crossposting justified, if not for something like this?


> >>What is in your mind the relation between cross-posting to 5 newsgroups
> >>and getting a quick answer? Would cross-posting to 20 newsgroups get you
> >>faster answers?
> >
> >
> > yes as a matter of fact.
> >
> >
> > Would you like to get many quick but wrong solution
> >
> >>proposals? Would that fit your expectations?
> >
> >
> > better than getting the replies of anal and utterly unhelpful assholes,
who
> > get their kicks out of imposing their self-righteous opinions on those
they
> > deem lesser than they are.
> >
> >
>
> Bottom posting is not a preference in this newsgroup (and in many
> newsgroups): it's a requirement. So, you should bring your
> like-it-or-not arguments elsewhere.

actually, seeing as no one owns the newgroups, and seeing as how alt.html is
an unmoderated one, you can take *your* arguments elsewhere.


> People willing to read and give their best to assist others are
> volunteers. Stop perceiving newsgroups like a 24 hour help desk. Stop
> expecting to be spoon-fed: read the FAQs and open up your mind a bit.

I know--what's the sense of seeking help on a certain topic in newsgroups
that specialize in that topic? What was I thinking?

TheKeith wrote:
> I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good

Not sure if you want cross browser compatibility, I dont suppose you do, so
here is what you need to do....


function showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage(pIMG) {
parent.document.all.viewer.src=pIMG;
}



<img src="buildingcorner.jpe"
onClick="showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage ('buildingcorner.jpe')"
width="142" height="100" style="cursor:hand">

no need to put the onClick on the <A>... might as well simply put it on the
<IMG>

Also...
Its a pretty bad idea to put you thumbs on this frame when all they are are
the original larger image just resized. You should shrink them down a bit.
At the moment, on a slow connect, your page will take a long time to load.

"Disco" <discooctopus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UgpKa.316$747.14885@news.optus.net.au...
> TheKeith wrote:
> > I don't really agree that frames are evil. They serve a very good
>
> Not sure if you want cross browser compatibility, I dont suppose you do,
so
> here is what you need to do....

Oh I missed this part of your post for some reason. It would be nice if this
worked in mozilla/netscape (newer versions are fine)--is there anything I
can do to make that happen?


>
>
> function showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage(pIMG) {
> parent.document.all.viewer.src=pIMG;
> }
>
>
>
> <img src="buildingcorner.jpe"
> onClick="showthefreakinimageintheparentfreakinpage ('buildingcorner.jpe')"
> width="142" height="100" style="cursor:hand">
>
> no need to put the onClick on the <A>... might as well simply put it on
the
> <IMG>
>
> Also...
> Its a pretty bad idea to put you thumbs on this frame when all they are
are
> the original larger image just resized. You should shrink them down a
bit.
> At the moment, on a slow connect, your page will take a long time to load.
>
>
>
>