> Unfortunately it's easier for them that way -- and I suspect it > precedes another round of large numbers of heavily IE only, > non-standard features for use with the new XML in Longhorne. Doesn't > Mozilla do something similar with XUL now tho? The big difference > being that Mozilla isn't selling it as the only way to integrate with > a monolithic operating system that dominates a good share of the > business market. At least as far as I know -- I could be completely > off-base, just been my impression from what I've read/heard.
Yeah, there's been quite a bit of talk about "why didn't Microsoft just use XUL". The answer from Microsoft seems to be that XUL/CSS wasn't designed for rendering desktop applications. I think it's roughly the same argument for MXML. > Thanks for the links... First one I've read... second one... well... > dunno... I'm just not ready to drop $90 for 6 months of access to a > site I don't know if I'll use much. Sorry about that. I don't think I've subscribed to that site. In fact, I'm using an OS I just installed a month ago, so I'm pretty sure that site doesn't remember me. Oh well, it was just more of the same. > Thanks Ben! Not bad at all! Much better than I was able to > accomplish... No problem. After a recent argument...errr...ummm...debate on this list, I've decided to try and create a fully XHTML/CSS 2.1 compliant design. So, to make a long story short, I'm trying to solve some of the same problems. :) > Incidentally -- in case you were curious -- the issue caused by the > frameset is that the content frame populates a "breadcrumbs" trail in > the header using DOM. In order to prevent the race condition in which > the content loads before the header frame and the div containing the > breadcrumbs is then not available to be populated, I'm loading the > header first and then using DOM in the header frame to load the > content frame to make sure the header div is available before the > content frame loads. I'm not entirely happy with this scenario, but > it's working -- and it lets the user resize the navigation frame, so > it has its advantages. That sounds reasonable. I was using several more or less global variables stored in the navigator and window objects in one application (for which we had several different versions). I was using those to track whether or not a frame had loaded. Turns out, Windows XP Service Pack 2 didn't like that very much. Your way sounds much safer than mine. :) Ben Rogers http://www.c4.net v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188345 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
