I believe the explanation is in the docs.... (not trying to be snotty ... I
just can't bring up the explanation from memory).
The following quote from some other written sources on the subject:
"Any number of items may be placed in the second level (scrollable)
navigational menu, but the top-level menu is limited by the width and font
attribute values. "
|-----Original Message-----
|From: ibtoad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:31 PM
|To: CF-Talk
|Subject: RE: "Harpoon" Release is Final & Available
|
|
|Why?
|Rich
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Patricia Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 1:35 PM
|To: CF-Talk
|Subject: RE: "Harpoon" Release is Final & Available
|
|
|No. It's an inherent limitation.
|
||-----Original Message-----
||From: ibtoad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
||Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 12:40 PM
||To: CF-Talk
||Subject: RE: "Harpoon" Release is Final & Available
||
||
||Is there any way to make the top level of the horizontal tool
||bar scroll?
||I can only fit 4 top level options, the second level will
|automatically
||scroll when there are more than the ammount of options that
||will fit on the
||screen.
||
||Rich
||
||-----Original Message-----
||From: Steve Drucker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
||Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 12:00 PM
||To: CF-Talk
||Subject: RE: "Harpoon" Release is Final & Available
||
||
||Well, here's some anecdotal evidence --
||
||Once we removed XML as a transport mechanism and started relying on
||loadvariables, the average object shrank in byte-size by over
||50% and load
||times, in one particular case (cascading menu), went from 8
||seconds to under
||2 seconds.
||
||Regards,
||Steve Drucker
||CEO
||Fig Leaf Software
||
||
||-----Original Message-----
||From: Evan Lavidor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
||Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:00 AM
||To: CF-Talk
||Subject: RE: "Harpoon" Release is Final & Available
||
||
||Dave,
||
||Can you point me to any documentation/info from Macromedia or
||Figleaf which
||shows this? I'm going to be starting a project with one of our Flash
||developers who's excited about the concept of using XML, but
||if it doesn't
||perform as well...
||
||But I'd like to have something with which to back up my claims.
||
||Thanks,
||
||Evan
||
||> -----Original Message-----
||> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
||> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 2:55 PM
||> To: CF-Talk
||> Subject: RE: "Harpoon" Release is Final & Available
||>
||>
||> > > Using WDDX at this time, regrettably, is NOT a best practice.
||> >
||> > Is this because of some problem with Flash?
||>
||> Yes. The current version of Flash doesn't handle XML as
||efficiently as raw
||> string data.
||>
||> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
||> http://www.figleaf.com/
||> voice: (202) 797-5496
||> fax: (202) 797-5444
||>
||>
||
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
