Logos,
I did top.top because in my Firefox top referenced the iFrame that
uses blank.html. top.top Goes to the blank.html's top e.g. the
originating window. Essentially I saw it as <iframe
src="blank.html><iframe src="thecalledurl.htm"></iframe></iframe> so I
had to go two up two levels. I tested this using alert(top.location)
which return blank.html?s=0 then did alert(top.top.location) which
returned the originating url. Make sense?
The return false, was there because, well.... I wasn't thinking it
would make more sense to keep it all together in the top level
function. I guess I could always come up with a lame excuse that
instead of using error handling I decided to just make the button
return false, but that's lame and I won't stoop that low ;).
And the javascript: was so that any browser knew explicitly that this
was javascript I was calling. I have never had trouble with a browser
thinking something else, but when I think about it I always try and be
as explicit as possible. That is something I got from an old C++
teacher who was religious about calling class functions/properties
using the whole class instead of importing the class, header, etc. Of
course I am also hypocritical in that I do not use window.location or
window.alert etc.
On Oct 1, 11:01 am, Logos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heythchipmunk! I have a couple stylistic questions to ask...
>
> Why do you use
> onclick="javascript:top.top.switchGb...
> in your code instead of
> onclick="top.switchGb...
> ?
>
> Why did you put the return false in the onclick instead of the top
> level function?
>
> Just curious. There's always tons of ways to solve a problem, and I'm
> wondering as to the rationale behind these. Whenever I see choices
> that I don't understand, I like to find out the motives to see if I
> can learn something new.
>
> Tyler
>
> On Sep 30, 12:26 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > whoops....
> > change:
> > <input type="button" onclick="javascript:top.top.switchGb();return
> > false;" value="submit">
>
> > to:
> > <input type="button"
> > onclick="javascript:top.top.switchGb('http://www.someurl.com/something.htm');returnfalse;"
> > value="submit">
>
> > Also, I speak only on my behalf and not on that of GreyBox, Orangoo,
> > or Logos!
>
> > On Sep 30, 3:19 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > First, I disagree with you that GreyBox is not really supported.
> > > Support can come in a variety of ways. It could be community driven,
> > > such as this, or it could be you pay for it, such as with Microsoft.
>
> > > Secondly, I can see in no way how you were "set up" to have Logos
> > > "services sold". I believe the fact that this script is GIVEN to you
> > > free of charge is enough. If Logos has decided that what you are
> > > asking for is above and beyond what should be reasonably expected of
> > > him then that is his decision.
>
> > > Additionally, if doing "freelance programming" in Google returns so
> > > many results just ask one of them to do it next time instead of
> > > complaining about strawman issues. It really is quite rude to be so
> > > demanding of something that you did not even pay for nor contribute to
> > > on your own.
>
> > > Now, on to the nice bit:
>
> > > Add this to your originating page:
> > > <script type="text/javascript">
> > > function switchGb( urlRedirect ) {
> > > GB_hide();
> > > GB_show('Thank you', urlRedirect);}
>
> > > </script>
>
> > > Add this to your called page:
> > > <input type="button" onclick="javascript:top.top.switchGb();return
> > > false;" value="submit">
>
> > > Done!
>
> > > On Sep 30, 1:51 pm, sugar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > It's unfortunate that these Google groups are this way. Instead of a
> > > > community where one helps another, it's full of spam ads and blatant
> > > > sales pitches. While it's wrong to expect someone to do free coding to
> > > > make your problem go away, it's just as wrong to set someone up to
> > > > sell your services. Got to Google and search for "freelance programmer
> > > > jobs" and you will find tons of places you can get good programmers
> > > > who act professionally. There are other solutions like thickbox as
> > > > well - GreyBox, as you can see isn't really supported.
>
> > > > On Sep 30, 1:44 pm, Logos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sure. My rates are $80/hr with a minimum of 1hr. A 1hr retainer in
> > > > > advance is required. How would you like to pay?
>
> > > > > Tyler
>
> > > > > On Sep 29, 4:55 am, "malar vizhi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > > Can you please give me a coding straight away?
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Malar
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"GreyBox" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greybox?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
