I thought this would be a handy tool, for example, when embedding images in
an S5 presentation (see for example
http://www.schestowitz.com/Research/Presen...ons/April_2005)

The text in principle adapts in size to accommodate the screen nicely, but
images do not. Using your 2-line simplistic trick, which quite frankly,
somebody must have deployed already, one would still need to add an element
to warp the image. So it can be a pain that's not trivial or quick to add.

Roy

Is there a way to make the image resize without refreshing the browser?

nc

The best I've come up with in the past hour is to alter the JavaScript
file like this:

: document.cookie = "farfoos=" + document.body.clientWidth;
: document.write("<img id='shapes' src='index.php'>");
:
: window.setInterval("check()", 1);
: var width = document.body.clientWidth;
:
: function check()
: {
: cwidth = document.body.clientWidth;
: if ( width != cwidth )
: {
: document.cookie = "farfoos=" + cwidth;
: document.getElementById("shapes").src='index.php';
: setTimeout("width = cwidth;",250);
: }
: }

The problem though is that you have to start off windowed and then
make it bigger for it to work. If you go from big to small it won't
resize because it just puts in a scroll bar and the clientWidth stays
the same. I tried to put in a scrolling:hidden style into the main
HTML file but then the whole thing didn't work at all so I'm not
completely sure, it may not be possible without a refresh.

Although impossible is usually just another way of saying "I don't
have time". For my own purposes it works the way I want it to. The
next thing I'll probably do with it is to make it so that it can
handle PNG alpha transparencies as the current version does not and
that's a function that I require for my next major project.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Not sure this falls under the catagory of "web design history". But
still 2 thumbs up for thinking out of the box.

--
-=tn=-

See previous - but you could forward the index to itself and include the
dimensions as get variables. Also, I meant to say before, but Ive just
forgotten again - oh yeah, add in an onresize - refresh function.

Oh and btw, before you go on about blinders - like you said, theres a
much easier way to killfile people without running software filters.

--
Mimic

"I can speak to people anywhere in the world, I can get any information
I want, I can goto new zealand in 0.384 seconds, why would I want to go
outside?"
Damn the day star and its rays of light beaming upon my box of moving
pictures.
ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== [ www.hidemyemail.net ]

I thought about an onresize refresh function, that'd probably be
easiest way, but I'm trying my hardest to get it to function on the
fly without needing to reload everything. Probably I'll try and set
it up with iframes next...although now that I think about it...most
everything would need to be refreshed anyway if it was
resized...hrmmm...

Before I even get back to messing with it though I need to construct a
better primer, the one I'm going to use in the contest against
Starshine. I'm REALLY pushing my skills in graphic art and color
theory on this one, I hope Starshine comes up with something halfway
decent to try and rival it, although I'm thinkin this is gonna wind up
being a flawless victory on my part.

I was actually referring to my Farfoos headers. Quite frankly I don't
really give a fuck one way or another who filters me or why, I just
find it incredibly entertaining to torment people about it. ^_^

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Here is a somewhat more easier way that doesn't put quite as much strain
on your server -- it uses a bunch of pre-sized images and selects the
closest match:

http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/grad/

Other related examples:

http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/50pc_width_2
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/reflexion/example

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Dont worry about the refreshing parts, I have that pretty much covered.
There is one piece of my design I dont like which perhaps you could poke
out when I up the code.

Check this out also, its great: http://stylephreak.frogrun.com/cm.php

:), I dont filter anyone - not with my client anyway. Except some
spammers that are in there. Its far more effective ti just skip the
posts you dont wanna read

--
Mimic

"I can speak to people anywhere in the world, I can get any information
I want, I can goto new zealand in 0.384 seconds, why would I want to go
outside?"
Damn the day star and its rays of light beaming upon my box of moving
pictures.
ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== [ www.hidemyemail.net ]

Very nice. Bookmarked! :)

--
----------------------------------
- ByteCoder -
- "Da Evul Dootchie" -
- Qnl0ZUNvZGVyQHBsYW5ldC5ubA== -
----------------------------------

I cannot tell if you are being serious here. I had assumed that you knew
enough not to be impressed with a poor implementation of an extremely
dubious idea.

Richard.

What the fuck have you got, bitch? Oh, oh, what up:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/index.html

All I have left to do is add in the content (and I'll probably modify
the images a bit to give it a more 3D spatial feel).

As far as Google is concerned that's the first EVER perfect liquid
website layout. You ain't got nothin on me, Bitch.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

word homie. Westsiiiiiiide

--

"I hear ma train a comin'
.... hear freedom comin"

Articulate as ever.

All? You should try taking a look at what you have done form a variety
of remote locations:-

http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/bw.gif
(144Kb: screenshot of the above URL screwing up royally)

A much better short-term plan would be to take some time out to learn
the technologies you purport to be such an expert in. Because, lets face
it, you would never have written the code that you posted at the head of
this thread if you understood any of the technologies involved.

And how did you work that out? You didn't by any chance enter the phrase
"perfect liquid website layout" into google and conclude than none
existed because you got no hits in return?

"Perfect" is a complex criteria with inevitably subjective aspects. The
idea itself is questionable, which will be evident when you observer
that there is more hot air coming out of the back of the server than is
issuing from the web designer. But the whole cannot be perfect without
the implementation being prefect, and it isn't even good. The bizarre
implementation "decisions" betray evidence of programming by
coincidence:-

<URL:
http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppbook/...oincidence.html >

- and thus an amateurish approach. And the obvious disregard for the
issues that will result in avoidable complete failure scenarios
(including the one illustrated above) for significant proportions of
potential visitors betrays an ignorance of those issues.

There are a number of possible optimum implementations of this idea that
will not go belly up at the slightest provocation (the choice depending
on which aspects of the notion was identified as most potentially
problematic in the context of use). The implementation as demonstrated
(at the above URL and in the OP) is so far from being one of them that
"perfect" should be reserved until the results of a total re-write are
available.

Incidentally, it is not a new idea. I have seen it proposed a couple of
times on Usenet (and even well implemented). I have never observed it in
the wild, but that is probably because on most web sites there is at
least one person who can recognise a bad idea when they see one.

You are quite right, when it comes to putting bloated ego in the way of
reason nobody I have ever encountered has anything on you.

Richard.

How'd you get that? All I see is a blank page ... totally devoid of
any content whatsoever. Oh wait. He did say he had to add content.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Easy, you can see from the original script that no thought has gone into
caching and so the images will tend to be cached. So I made my initial
request with a small browser window, loading the scaled-down version of
the images, and then re-sized upwards. The page re-load got the same
scaled-down inmates from an intervening cache (and so will anyone else
who now visits the site through the same cache :).

One of the other avoidable failure scenarios, self evident in to posted
code, will result in blank pages, when using many Internet security
programs (such as Norton) with the "privacy" checkbox checked. Is that
you?

Not much point as it stands.

Richard.

No, I have JavaScript disabled in Firefox. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Yes, that would do it as well, but less likely than people using privacy
filtering proxies, given that they are now ding distributed with new
computers as a matter of course. (Though it is unlikely that those two
causes would overlap much, so the total impact will be cumulative.)

Richard.

You really need to see about getting that badger taken out of your
ass, it's making you such an unsociable little bitch. ^_^

REEELY?! OMG NO WAY!

*looks at the image*

....was it that, Windows95 that you're using? Windows98? D00d, I have
no time to deal with luddites who choose to use an OS that's nearly a
decade out of date, seriously, get the fuck outta here. *shakes head*
Yeesh, like the fuckin morons running around still using Netscape
Navigator for Hells sake.

No, see, I already did that, which is why I am an expert.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...ya see Junior, this is the part where you just
start runnin at the fuckin mouth without anything to contribute. I
mean if you think my technique is flawed, well by Satan you had best
step it the fuck up and propose a better way...oh yeah, that's right
YOU CAN'T. Coincidentally, a couple people...not in alt.html nor in
alt.php have actually suggested alternate methods, like using GET
variables rather than cookies...which is peachy, I could do it that,
I'll probably try it at least, see if it's any faster. Someone
mentioned security concerns using my current methodology but they
never elaborated and the only thing I could think of is if you like
spoofed a cookie at the PHP script...although that wouldn't actually
do anything other than not make it generate an image for you...
*shrugs*

Actually no, I simply searched for liquid websites, liquid images and
elastic images in conjunction with phrases like web design, web
programming, HTML, PHP and JavaScript.

You see, MORON, making a perfect liquid website is something I've been
wanting to do for quite some time and generally speaking I'm not the
type to go around and do a bunch of work that someone else has already
done. So I examined quite literally hundreds of different examples of
liquid website forms and studied all current techniques to a level
that a spoon fed educated puke like you can't even fucking begin to
comprehend. And once I found no current viable method...I made my
own.

So unless you plan to post some proof to the contrary, maybe you
should just "know your role" and shut the fuck up...maybe if you're a
good little moron someone with more sense, intelligence and experience
will come along and formulate a coherent argument FOR YOU. `, )

And yet I fully understand every single technique I used, MORON...hell
in that one post where I answered my own question about assigning
transparency to a palette based image created via PHP I actually
described what was happening at EVERY line.

Doing things like that...sorta just blows yer lil accusation right out
of the water, don't it?

You just keep runnin at the fuck mouth, Junior. Hell if it's so easy
why don't you do it? ^_^

No, but mine is the best implementation of it:
http://www.michelf.com/weblog/2005/liquid-image/

Uh huh, and the lurkers are supporting you in email too I bet. Oh
hey, if you had ACTUALLY seen it on Usenet...well where are the Google
links to prove it? Oh, oh yer just runnin at the fuckin mouth again.
Sorry, my bad.

And yet it works perfectly, huh, fancy that...of course it took around
400 lines of original code to produce it...which I would imagine is
why most...pukes, like you haven't tried it. Satan forbid a spoon fed
educated moron like you actually puts some effort into your
interest...of course, for a puke like you, maybe it's just something
you do to try and make a living...in which case, I guess we all know
now why you're not very successful at it. Tell me something,
Richie...do you even HAVE a website? *snicker*

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Why do you have JavaScript disabled? I mean seriously, that's kinda
like disabling HTML. o_O

It's like, why bother. Turn off yer computer, throw it in the garbage
and go find a new hobby.

Or as an alternative you could install two browsers, one for idle
surfing with it's security settings maxed out because you're not
intelligent enough to know using common sense what's a legitimate site
and what isn't. Then have another browser setup with NORMAL security
settings in order to view a site once you've found it to be legit.
*shrugs*

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Never mind GET variables, that was just a fleeting idea... oh no, Ive
come up with something far better :D You want no cookies, I have none,
you wanted to mask your variables... oh Ive certainly done that ;D

Still 1 bug I need to fix and I want to bum some lines out the code. But
soon, you may see my masterpiece :D

Sorry I should have included a link:
http://uk.php.net/manual/en/security.globals.php
Just something to be weary of :)


--
Mimic

"I can speak to people anywhere in the world, I can get any information
I want, I can goto new zealand in 0.384 seconds, why would I want to go
outside?"
Damn the day star and its rays of light beaming upon my box of moving
pictures.
ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== [ www.hidemyemail.net ]

Here ya go, Kiddo...for the benefit of your idiocy:
http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/ie6/ie-3.shtml

Try actually READING for once...specifically the part where it says:
"Check for newer versions of stored pages."

I suppose maybe I could take blatant stupidity into account more and
use a time stamp on teh file names, but then really Richie, would you
have ANYTHING left to bitch and moan about? ^_^

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

yc (mushroom! mushroom!)

For your page, that's exactly correct. :-)

Thanks, but I already have several hobbies.

No, one browser is fine. That little checkbox - [ ] JavaScript -
handles it all quite well. Oh, and don't make erroneous assumptions
about my intelligence. Thanks.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

I look forward to it, hell I look forward to anything that can
outmatch my designs, the last thing I'd ever want to actually think is
that I had reached an all ending level of absolute perfection. When I
said it's the "perfect liquid website"...I only meant currently.
There are ALWAYS better ways there are ALWAYS new plateaus to reach
there are ALWAYS new goals...that's what makes all this stuff so much
fun...

Of course people like that Richard guy...they don't get that, all they
do is bitch, talk shit, run at the fuckin mouth and produce NOTHING.
And really, there are only two types of people in these froups...those
who produce...and those who don't do fuck all but talk.

Ahhh yes, I remember reading that back when I was working on the NP
Index site. I also remembered this part:

"This page will explain how one can write insecure code with this
directive but keep in mind that the directive itself isn't insecure
but rather it's the misuse of it."

Like I said, I'm not misusing it, spoofing a cookie on the site isn't
going to do anything but not generate an image, no security risk.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

You disable JavaScript...does one get any more stupid than that? I
mean unsigned activeX controls okay, but what the fuck are you
disabling JavaScript for? ...you know besides ignorant stupidity.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Oh for fuck's sake, someone pass the sick bucket...

Do give it a rest old chap. The design of that page sucks harder than a
Dyson bagless.

--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Yes, by allowing unsigned ActiveX controls.

ActiveX does not work in Firefox, only in a certain operating system
component that masquerades as a browser, and which is never used on
any of my computers.

Smart people would have known that. :-)

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

JavaScript allows unsigned ActiveX controls, eh?

....which sort of begs the question...why did you disable JavaScript
then?

Your browser preference has no meaning what so ever to me, I'm sorry
that you thought it did.

A smart person probably would have figured out that he wouldn't need
to disable JavaScript that can supposedly allow unsigned ActiveX
controls in a browser that doesn't even support any ActiveX controls
in the first place...boy I tell ya, you're just like the mayor of
stupid town or something.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Duh... You used POST variables! ;p~~~

--
----------------------------------
- ByteCoder -
- "Da Evul Dootchie" -
- Qnl0ZUNvZGVyQHBsYW5ldC5ubA== -
----------------------------------

You failed to catch the meaning of the statement. Sorry. Read your
next line.

Because I can. And any web author worth his salt does not use
JavaScript for any critical content. You do know that your most
important visitor does not have JavaScript, right?

Yeah, I knew that.

You seem to be the only one who feels that JavaScript and ActiveX are
in any way related. I certainly know they are not.

--
-bts
-Mayor, Stupidtown

Automatically submit post variables? are you insane?
Did you get my mail? ;)

--
Mimic

"I can speak to people anywhere in the world, I can get any information
I want, I can goto new zealand in 0.384 seconds, why would I want to go
outside?"
Damn the day star and its rays of light beaming upon my box of moving
pictures.
ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== [ www.hidemyemail.net ]

It's what you say, not what you mean that counts.

I would imagine you have quite a lot to be sorry for.

Why, I remember what I wrote.

You could also shoot yourself in the head. Just because you can do
something doesn't mean that you should...although in your case,
really, shooting yourself in the head might turn out to be a good
thing.

Oh? And why is that? Now ya see Cupcake, the problem with you is
that you're starting to retard into the position of poor lil Richie.
In other words, yer runnin at the fuckin mouth. You just keep
TALKING, but you're not doing anything to PROVE your position. Really
the ONLY argument one could even come up with for disabling JavaScript
would be as an extra measure to block popups...but um, isn't yer
magical FireFox browser supposed to do that WITHOUT disabling
JavaScript? Cause um, Internet Explorer does. ^_^

Oh...btw...
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
JavaScript usage - January - 89% enabled - 11% disabled

And on my CB site (which doesn't use any JavaScript):
http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=bwcb
JavaScript usage - January - 99% enabled - 1% disabled

So what the fuck are you doin, MORON? What did you miss a meeting or
something? The "Ways NOT To Be A Dumbass" meeting? If your only goal
in disabling JavaScript is to try and block popups that's pretty much
like cutting off your head to spite your body.

You do know that none of my sites are built to cater to idiocy, right?

And as fucking retarded as you are, you seem to think I have some
particular preference as far as browsers, just to make it perfectly
clear to you child...I don't.

Then why did you imply that JavaScript somehow can enable unsigned
ActiveX controls?

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

I believe he was talking about search robots...




--
Oli

...like the Googlebot. The site Hatter posted awhile ago will be a
blank page to the bot.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

....he thinks search engines are people now...great...apparently he's
the mayor of crazy town as well.

Coincidentally, as far as search engines are concerned there are only
two tags which I consider relevant:

<meta name="description" content=""/>
<meta name="keywords" content=""/>

If those two tags are not enough to properly describe your website to
a search spider/robot...then you are REALLY doing something wrong.

o_O

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

...and since all you seem to say is denigrating comments with nasty
words, I guess I have nothing further to communicate to you.

Oh, except for.. get it straight. I never said that, never even came
anywhere near implying that. You were the one who first mentioned
ActiveX, and I have no idea why.

G'day.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Excellent idea, shut yourself the fuck up! I fully support your
proposal, Kiddo! ^_^

And hey, 99% of JavaScript enabled visitors rightly concur!
http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=bwcb

Maybe next time when you're feeling a lil less...DUMB...you can
formulate a coherent argument to try and actually support your
idiocy...or not.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Google stopped reading and evaluating keywords years ago. Sorry you
weren't invited to the party.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Is that so?

http://www.google.com/search?biw=en&q=Backwater+Productions
:Backwater Productions
:Backwater Productions offers website design, logo design, video editing and copy editing at some of the best prices you'll find!
:www.backwater-productions.net/ - 2k - Jun 29, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

From my Backwater Productions website:
:<meta name="keywords" content="Backwater Productions, website design, logo design, graphic editing, video editing, copy editing">
:<meta name="description" content="Backwater Productions offers website design, logo design, video editing and copy editing at some of the best prices you'll find!">

Tell me something...does it like...hurt to be as DUMB as you are?
o_O

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Pretty much:
http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2165061
http://www.traffick.com/article.asp?aID=102
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/meta-tags...iption-meta-tag

If I'm not mistaken, that's your *description* tag it's listing, not
your *keywords* tag?

Besides, whilst Google may *list* your page on a SERP using your
description tag, when it comes to indexing and ranking, this is based
(as a general rule) on actual page content rather than meta details.

However, either way, this discussion is rather academic if your page
contains no content other than Javascript-generated, as your chances of
being ranked are virtually zero, I would imagine.

Actual page content and appropriate HTML markup are increasingly
becoming the most important factors in search-engine results.


--
Oli

Yup.

<lol> See Oli's response for full details.

If you hadn't been throwing spitballs in the back of the classroom,
you'd know all this important stuff. :-)

http://www.google.com/intl/en/webmasters/guidelines.html

Esp. the first point of Technical Guidelines.
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

2002

2002

2004...but it's basically a scam service trying to tell you that meta
tags don't matter so you'll pay them money to magically get your site
listed...right.

Seriously d00d, is this really all the better you could find? I mean
fer fuck sake *I* could find you better sources to back yer shit up
and I'm the opposing side! o_O

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:TP-I_zS...oductions&hl=en

Seems to have cached the whole fuckin thing actually.

*shrugs*

I don't think Google's search engine really cares about tags, I could
have easily just used <meta name="farfoos" content=""/> and it would
have produced the same results. The naming convention is more for
your benefit, not for the spider/robot, it doesn't care what the hell
the tags are. I think a word duplication checking routine is probably
all the more advanced their shit can do...well that and it probably
ignores common words like "the", "at", "and", etc, etc...

And yet a search for "Backwater Productions" brings my site right up
there at the top, huh, fancy that!

....OMG what are you fucking stupid? I mean, d00d...PAY ATTENTION!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Backwater+Productions
It's right the fuck up there at the top! o_O

WE ARE NUMBER ONE!!1!

*gives Oli the finger*

Sweet baby Jesus nailed to a cross writhing in agony why is everybody
so gawd damn fuckin stupid today? Is there something in the water?

Actually though, you're quite wrong. Search engine rankings often has
more to do with the URL than it does anything. Seriously, run a
search and pay attention to all the URLs, you'll notice it right
quick, they even bold face them. ^_^

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Read my response to Oli, Doofball, then maybe you'll realize the
actual truth...oh but hey, it's not like they don't say it in the
FIRST SENTENCE of that link you posted:

"Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links."

It's all about the URLs kiddo. Run a search for the word "red"...

www.redhat.com
www.redcross.org
www.redherring.com
www.redmeat.com
www.redvsblue.com
www.redbull.com
www.redenvelope.com
www.redlobster.com
www.redhotchilipeppers.com

.....are ya...startin to notice a trend there, kiddo?

Yeesh...you people sure are fuckin stupid...it's like you just read
shit without actually taking the bother to analyze it for yourself
first hand. o_O

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Yes but. Your links are hidden in JavaScript. Your buttons on that
backwater site are invisible to Google. You use frames and iframes for
no apparent reason.

Results 1 - 10 of about 181,000,000 which proves nothing.

Yes I am.

Sounds like something Oli and I should say...

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

So you are proposing that I change my browser's caching settings to the
current setting? Now that is not going to make a lot of difference, is
it?

I could see from your code that you just don't have a handle on the
issue, but thanks from making that obvious.

I could see from your code that you just don't have a handle on the
issue, but thanks from making that doubly obvious.

Richard.

Why do you think I would be worried? All you ever do is issue a stream
of pseudo-patronising comments. You can hardly expect that to be taken
seriously where you post inept code that you clearly don't understand
yourself and then claim that it demonstrates expertise. It is too late
to try to be patronising, I have seen your code.

<snip>

You mean you can't tell what OS I am using from looking at an image of
IE 6 in a Windows "Classic" GUI? Oh yes that right, you cannot tell.

But it is the shortfall in your understanding of HTTP that produced the
effect illustrated so the OS doesn't make much difference anyway.

No, you see I have read your code so I know you are a barely adequate
amateur with more to learn than you can currently conceive of.

Oh yes I can. And along the way I can remove the javascript dependency
(with at least acceptable results without client-side scripting
support), get the HTTP caching working for the system instead of against
it, eliminate the need to ever re-load the actual page, make the
re-loading of the images more efficient, double the performance of the
client-side code, make it truly cross-browser, and even remove the need
for the server to flog its guts out and so allow the process to scale to
a commercial level of web site usage.

Apart form the questionable worth of creating a good implementation of a
bad idea, correcting all of the manifestations of your ineptness in this
single instance would do you no good in the long run.

The reason is best illustrated by considering a single expression form
your client-side code:-

<URL: http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/internals.js >
(line 144)

Which is:-

eval(logot+logoc)

Now a real expert at javascript looks at that expression and sees the
AdditiveExpression forming a single argument to a built-in function
call. They know the implications of the AdditiveExpression and they know
the behaviour of the built in function being called. And as a result
they would _never_ write this expression.

The amateur, programming by coincidence, writes this code without
understanding what it does and then finds that it satisfies some value
of "works", and starts to use it extensively (there are another ten
examples in that single file). Its actions and implications are never
seen.

I can tell you why a (sane) javascript programmer would never write that
expression. But what benefit would that do you? You would just fall into
the next trap of programming by coincidence. The only real solution
would be for you to understand the language that you are trying to use,
so you can make actual informed decisions about what you write. But that
will take effort on your part rather than examples from me.

OK. In your little world you can probably get away with telling people
your are an expert when you are no such thing, but then it would be best
to stay in your world in order to be convincing.

Yes your could do that, indeed you should do that. But the significant
detail is that you didn't do that when you could have, which
demonstrates that you don't understand why you should have done that and
instantly betrayed you limited grasp of the issues.

The choice of a cookie as a vehicle for transmitting data to a server is
another example of programming by coincidence. You tried it and it
satisfied some limited value of "works", and so there it sits, with
harmful implications beyond your knowledge or apparently comprehension.

So you still don't know why you should have done that in the first
place. You see the way it doesn't really help you in the long run for
people to be pointing out individual aspects of your inept script for
improvement? You need to understand why you should have been using the
query string on the URL of a GET request to transfer information to the
server, else all you will achieve is fixing one fault in one single
script. You still won't know what you are doing next time your try.

Quite right! You can hardly expect to trumpet your "expertise" and then
be spoon fed the understanding you assert you already have.

Is an image still an image if it is zero pixels square? (Zen?)

<snip>

You do like to say that, but I know that the product of someone who
really does understand the techniques you purport to use would not
resemble the code you posted, so I am less than convinced.

Ah, so you have a justification for:-

eval(logot+logoc)

-? Well lets hear it.

<snip>

There may be no implementations better than the poor effort you posted
here, but that would just suggest that the competent have recognised a
bad idea and not bothered to code it. Leaving you as just the individual
who has pursued folly furthest.

<snip>

Blank screens and images pixelised beyond recognition qualify as working
perfectly for you?

Recognising a bad idea when it is seen is a much more likely reason.

Having a web site; the limit of your horizon.

I am not a web designer I am a web developer, and I work for a software
house. The spectrum of e-commerce web sites I have worked on includes a
dozen or so UK financial services sites, with single transaction limits
of 50,000 pounds sterling. A field where any small error may cost
someone a fortune, and the developer responsible their job. Where the
responsibility of understanding enough not to be letting even the
smallest error get into production is suitably rewarded.

I have no choice but understand the technologies I use, no choice but
code each expression I write with a precise comprehension of it actions
and consequences, and no alternative but to recognise an inept,
bullshitting charlatan when I listen to one.

Richard.

The only link they need is the one that points right to the main
content delivery mechanism, why the hell would I want Google pointing
links at sub pages? Hell all my newer sites don't even have real sub
pages, they're comprised of virtual pages, like nyah:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test...orm/histology1/

Who the hell uses sub pages directly anymore? Yeesh, talk about just
makin extra work for yourself.

And well they should be, if I wanted Google to be looking at the text
on my buttons by gawd I'd have put alt tags on the sum'bitches.

Actually on the backwater site at the time I was using them for very
specific reasons, however I've since found a better methodology (the
one I'm using in teh link I posted before).

Run a search on anything, kiddo, you'll find the same thing. Domain
names are teh UBER important. In fact the current strategy is to
actually buy domain names that have nothing to do with your actual
site and then just use redirects...oh shit, there's me saying things
I'm not supposed to go around talking about in public forums
again...oops.

Like I could get the domain name www.sexy-cool-rad-neato-sluts.com and
set it up with the same meta tags on my main Backwater Site and
include a redirect and then VIOLA! He, he, he...

Considering the basis of your arguments thus far have been, "Duh uh, I
read it somewhere so it's gots to be true!"...I don't think so. I'm
the one whose actually posting links to the actual searches that
Google comes up with. Because unlike you I've actually TESTED what
I've read.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Uh oh! There ya go runnin at the fuckin mouth again, Richie!

He, he, he...boy I was just WAITIN for you to reply!

Look again, Dimbulb, teh site now uses a date/time stamp on every
image to ensure a brand spankin new one even if you've got yer browser
settings set to 'never check for newer versions'.

Now then, was there anything else you wanna to bitch and moan about,
Richie dearest? Hrmmm? ^_^

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm x
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Right. Viola. Why are we talking about musical instruments now?

I'm so filled with joy for you.

However, since you have nothing substantially worthwhile to say ...

BTW, I love it when you call me kiddo. Nobody has called me that for
at least fifty years or so.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.