hmmm... methinks not now. I did some more testing and it seems to be
working fine. top.top does only go up one level as well however, but
just top by itself works too.
On Oct 2, 10:51 am, Logos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nifty, thanks for the explanation! I'm surprised at the top.top thing
> tho - I've never run into any problems just using top. Makes me
> wonder if something is lying in wait in my codebase somewhere that is
> gonna leap out and bite me...
>
> Tyler
>
> On Oct 1, 9:15 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
