Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
  1. #1
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    javascript pop-up menu on the older browser

    Hi. I am pretty new at javascript. What are some of the problems for the javascript pop-up menu on the older browser like netscape 4 & up and IE 5 and older computer?

  • #2
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Wichita
    Posts
    3,880
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    What pop-up menu? It's not like there's only one.
    Check out the Forum Search. It's the short path to getting great results from this forum.

  • #3
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    okay. The Javascript pop-up menu from Dreamweaver MX.
    Originally posted by Roy Sinclair
    What pop-up menu? It's not like there's only one.

  • #4
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Wichita
    Posts
    3,880
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Unless you post the code or a link to a page using the code then someone else will have to help you with the answer since I don't have/use Dreamweaver.

    At a guess though, I'd suspect it might work. Have you tried it yourself or are you just trying to find out if anyone knows?

    I have NS4 installed for testing so I can definitely check that one and if NS 4 works it's going to be near certain IE 5 will but a peek at the code will tell all.
    Check out the Forum Search. It's the short path to getting great results from this forum.

  • #5
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hi, Ron.
    Could you check it out for me. Here's the link to the popup menu from Dreamweaver mx . http://www.samhmah.com/popup/menu.html

  • #6
    Supreme Overlord Spookster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Marion, IA USA
    Posts
    6,278
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 83 Times in 82 Posts
    Works in:

    IE6.0
    NS4.7
    NS7.0
    Opera7.1
    Mozilla 1.4
    Spookster
    CodingForums Supreme Overlord
    All Hail Spookster

  • #7
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Originally posted by Spookster
    Works in:

    IE6.0
    NS4.7
    NS7.0
    Opera7.1
    Mozilla 1.4

    Thank you.
    If it works in NS4.7 Does it means if it also work in IE 5

  • #8
    Regular Coder Vincent Puglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    where the World once stood
    Posts
    367
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    Hi javasam,

    knowing the MickeyMouse (dreamweaver) as I do (which is very little, thank god) -- if it's simple enough it will probably runs in everything.

    nn4 -- document.layers
    ie4 -- document.all
    most everyone else -- document.getElementById

    so if your *.js file has all three of those phrases, it will work for over 95% of the browsers out there, especially since aol browsers (the one I checked with -- though there was no image for the first menu item) are crippled, but frilly, IE browsers

    Vinny
    Where the world once stood
    the blades of grass
    cut me still

  • #9
    me'
    me' is offline
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Warwickshire, England
    Posts
    1,229
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Compliance with version 4 browsers is more of an added extra. Nowhere near necessary - those versions are like 2 years old each. Anyone browsing the web with those must already be awear they're using a dinosaur.

    http://www.alistapart.com/stories/netscape/
    http://www.alistapart.com/stories/tohell/
    David House - Perfect is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. (Antoine de St. Exupery).
    W3Schools | XHTML Validator | CSS Validator | Colours | Typography | HTML&CSS FAQ | Go get Mozilla Now | I blog!

  • #10
    Regular Coder Vincent Puglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    where the World once stood
    Posts
    367
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    Hi me'

    Anyone browsing the web with those must already be awear [sic] they're using a dinosaur
    true

    Nowhere near necessary
    To paraphrase what I told someone else at a different forum:
    As long as the amount of effort to code for NN4/IE4 is neglible, there is no reason not to and a lot of reasons to do so.

    javasam is not putting in any more effort for NN4 compliance than 'standards' compliance -- his mickeymouse wysiwyg editor is doing the work. To remove the code would require work on his part (as well as knowledge he evidently doesn't have -- else he would have known at a glance that it worked for IE & NN).

    Being standards compliant does not mean ignoring the older browsers -- and if it does, it's wrong and discriminatory -- the majority of people using the older browsers are probably old, poor, stuck in a bureaucratic mire, and/or 3rd world.

    2 years ago, I helped someone script pages for IE3 because some school system in Australia or New Zealand didn't want its students and pta to upgrade.

    Vinny
    Where the world once stood
    the blades of grass
    cut me still

  • #11
    me'
    me' is offline
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Warwickshire, England
    Posts
    1,229
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    So let me rephrase.

    Coding for v4 isn't really worth it, but hey! As long as it's not getting in the way of the rest of your code, or web standards (I wouldn't go as far as using hacks to code for v4s) why not?
    David House - Perfect is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. (Antoine de St. Exupery).
    W3Schools | XHTML Validator | CSS Validator | Colours | Typography | HTML&CSS FAQ | Go get Mozilla Now | I blog!

  • #12
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    near Oswestry
    Posts
    4,508
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Originally posted by Vincent Puglia
    Being standards compliant does not mean ignoring the older browsers
    No it doesn't, but it does mean not providing rich content for them.

    Working with XHTML+CSS, it's almost impossible to make a comparable layout in 4-version browsers - and you shouldn't even try - for these browsers a plain, unstyled layout is infinitely more useable.
    "Why bother with accessibility? ... Because deep down you know that the web is attractive to people who aren't exactly like you." - Joe Clark

  • #13
    Regular Coder Vincent Puglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    where the World once stood
    Posts
    367
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    Hi brothercake,

    rich content for them.
    I guess it comes down to the definition of 'rich content'.

    If I am able to code a layered menu that works for all, why shouldn't I? If I can add elements (inputs) change styles with an extra hour of coding for NN4, should I ignore it? Why do I have to use 'createElement' or 'appendChild' in my script, when 'innerHTML' and 'doc..layers[div].doc..write(txt)' do the same job?

    a plain, unstyled layout
    There millions of pages out there (on the web) for version 4 browsers that are far from 'plain and unstyled'.

    Working with XHTML+CSS, it's almost impossible
    The key word is "XHTML", not 'impossible' -- something a lot of today's standards-bearers (to bring new meaning to an old phrase) seem to forget. If the site is not using XHMTL, there is no reason not to support the older browsers with at the least the appearance of 'rich content'.

    Vinny
    Where the world once stood
    the blades of grass
    cut me still

  • #14
    me'
    me' is offline
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Warwickshire, England
    Posts
    1,229
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Originally posted by Vincent Puglia
    If the site is not using XHMTL, there is no reason not to support the older browsers with at the least the appearance of 'rich content'
    If the site's not using XHTML? XML is the way of the future (at least according to w3c, and I'm inclined to agree with them!) so why are you avoiding coding for the future just because it means you can code a little more for the past?

    Use XHTML.
    David House - Perfect is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. (Antoine de St. Exupery).
    W3Schools | XHTML Validator | CSS Validator | Colours | Typography | HTML&CSS FAQ | Go get Mozilla Now | I blog!

  • #15
    Regular Coder Vincent Puglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    where the World once stood
    Posts
    367
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    why are you avoiding coding for the future just because it means you can code a little more for the past?
    I do not avoid coding for the future; I simply do not ignore the past. The code I suggest to people does not hinder Opera, Firebird, etal. A page written solely with 'standards' code, on the hand, does have a good chance of inhibiting NN4 & IE4. If that means the page cannot use XML, etc. -- so be it. Why do I need it? What does it do for the page that already isn't done?

    Or, is this a case of wanting what the Jones' have?

    Progress should never be used for progress' sake (which is what it sounds like when people scream 'STANDARDS!'). It should be used because it is needed.

    Vinny
    Where the world once stood
    the blades of grass
    cut me still


  •  
    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •