Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #37178 > unrolled thread

Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-08 23:22 -0700
    Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-09-09 10:15 +0200
      Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 04:18 -0700
        Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 06:40 -0700
          Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 06:42 -0700
            Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 06:48 -0700
    Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-09 20:16 +0200
      Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 11:35 -0700
      Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 11:44 -0700
        Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 12:00 -0700
          Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-10 17:35 +0200
            Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 09:24 -0700
              Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-09-10 18:15 +0100
              Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-11 00:58 +0200
                Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 23:18 -0700
                  Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-11 10:17 +0200
                Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 23:25 -0700
                  Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Flng Fck <nothanks@invalid.invalid> - 2019-09-11 09:19 +0200
                    Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 00:32 -0700
                      Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 00:36 -0700
                    Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 00:39 -0700
                  Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-11 10:20 +0200
                    Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 02:20 -0700
                      Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-12 10:29 +0200
                        Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-12 11:53 -0700
                          Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-09-12 22:33 +0200
                            Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-12 14:42 -0700
                              Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-12 21:44 -0700
                              Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Flng Fck <nothanks@invalid.invalid> - 2019-09-13 11:15 +0200
                                Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-13 11:13 -0700
                                Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-14 06:35 -0700
                              Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-13 14:42 +0200
                                Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. HusTler@f122.n1.z21.fsxnet (HusTler) - 2019-09-13 09:28 +1200
                                Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-09-14 11:20 +0100
                                  Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-14 22:40 +0200
                                    Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-09-15 03:15 -0700
                                      Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-09-15 03:22 -0700
                                      Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-09-15 11:33 +0100
                                        Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-09-15 04:17 -0700
                                          Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-15 05:51 -0700
                                          Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2019-09-15 19:19 +0100
                                          Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-15 23:52 +0200
                                            Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-09-16 02:38 -0700
                                              Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-16 11:55 +0200
                                                Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-09-16 03:03 -0700
                                                  Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-16 13:49 +0200
                                        Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. dr.j.r.stockton@gmail.com - 2019-09-15 06:40 -0700
    Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Maik Koenig <usenetspam@maikkoenig.de> - 2019-09-09 23:20 +0200
      Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 20:43 -0700
        Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 20:46 -0700
        Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-11 00:52 +0200
          Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 15:57 -0700
            Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-11 10:15 +0200
    Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-09-10 12:43 -0700
      Re: Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks. Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 14:05 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#37178 — Breakdown a HTML file into sub textblocks.

Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp

Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking frame i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.

InnerHTML suffers from same paradigm, it will do weird thing with the URL you try to load dynamically using. "Like frame it"
document.getElementById("content").innerHTML='<object type="text/html" data="home.html" ></object>';

It is fucking time you implement a insert or a subtext tag.

If you afraid of subtext iterate into loops a single level allowed will do just fine, no crossdomain needed not even other folders.

It is just a way to divide a HTML textblock "into handable size".
That the idiots could not implemented it from beginning is just weird, were they afraid of loadtime from servers would suffer? I mean you do split and load multiple javascript and CSS, so what is the reason for not have it?

<subinsert text="some.html"></subinsert>

WTF is the problem to get it done? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#37179

Jonas,

> Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
> https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp
...
> InnerHTML suffers from same paradigm, it will do weird thing with the URL
> you try to load dynamically using. "Like frame it"

Maybe the second is the reason for the first ?

> Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking 
> frame

Than don't use them.  Your choice.

> i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.

And that one has, according to you, a problem.   So, again, your choice: Use 
a method that works (like an iframe), or keep bashing your head against 
something that does not work for you.

And for the record: NO YOU DON'T.

You are trying to paste *HTML* block, and demand it should "just work". 
And there you've got another problem: Not all browsers handle that (runtime 
parsing) the same way.  In other words: Such a HTML content pasting could 
work in one browser, fail on another, and give unexpected results on a 
third.

> It is fucking time you implement a insert or a subtext tag.

Ehh... pardon me ?    Who is that "you" you are talking to there ?    We're 
all persons like you, either looking for help ourselves, or trying to help 
with our own experiences.   We definitily have /no/ power to add or change 
anything to the HTML spec or your current browser.


Kiddo, stop ranting and start to decribe your problem /and what you did to 
try to solve it/.   Hint: rejecting help from w3schools (or other sources) 
because you do not understand their solution is not the way to go.

Heck, they even gave you a full solution on a silver platter.   The /least/ 
you could do is to copy-paste it into a testpage and see if it will actually 
solve your problem.


Also, your follow-up message is a bit big, and as such rejected by some 
"text only" newsgroups / newsgroup servers (I could see the the message in 
the list, but had to switch to another to be able to actually read it).

A question though: Why are you dumping 64KByte of script into a newsgroup 
message when less than single would be enough to show your current problem ? 
Are you perhaps expecting that we just fix your script ?   If you do than I 
expect to be payed my standard rate.  :-)

And a second follow-up message quoting 64KByte just to add a single line ? 
Was that really needed ?

And as a closing remark:
Your post is full of agression (I /assume/ stemming from frustration) and 
demands that someone, /anyone/ make the cause of it go away.     Maybe you 
should take some time off and after it start with something less 
antagonistic to you ?

If not than perhaps just try to make smaller steps and regard every problem 
on its own and solving them their own milestones (instead of having a 
single, (much to) far away milestone finishing the whole project) ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37180

Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 10:15:32 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> Jonas,
> 
> > Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
> > https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp
> ...
> > InnerHTML suffers from same paradigm, it will do weird thing with the URL
> > you try to load dynamically using. "Like frame it"
> 
> Maybe the second is the reason for the first ?
> 
> > Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking 
> > frame
> 
> Than don't use them.  Your choice.
> 
> > i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.
> 
> And that one has, according to you, a problem.   So, again, your choice: Use 
> a method that works (like an iframe), or keep bashing your head against 
> something that does not work for you.
> 
> And for the record: NO YOU DON'T.
> 
> You are trying to paste *HTML* block, and demand it should "just work". 
> And there you've got another problem: Not all browsers handle that (runtime 
> parsing) the same way.  In other words: Such a HTML content pasting could 
> work in one browser, fail on another, and give unexpected results on a 
> third.
> 
> > It is fucking time you implement a insert or a subtext tag.
> 
> Ehh... pardon me ?    Who is that "you" you are talking to there ?    We're 
> all persons like you, either looking for help ourselves, or trying to help 
> with our own experiences.   We definitily have /no/ power to add or change 
> anything to the HTML spec or your current browser.
> 
> 
> Kiddo, stop ranting and start to decribe your problem /and what you did to 
> try to solve it/.   Hint: rejecting help from w3schools (or other sources) 
> because you do not understand their solution is not the way to go.
> 
> Heck, they even gave you a full solution on a silver platter.   The /least/ 
> you could do is to copy-paste it into a testpage and see if it will actually 
> solve your problem.
> 
> 
> Also, your follow-up message is a bit big, and as such rejected by some 
> "text only" newsgroups / newsgroup servers (I could see the the message in 
> the list, but had to switch to another to be able to actually read it).
> 
> A question though: Why are you dumping 64KByte of script into a newsgroup 
> message when less than single would be enough to show your current problem ? 
> Are you perhaps expecting that we just fix your script ?   If you do than I 
> expect to be payed my standard rate.  :-)
> 
> And a second follow-up message quoting 64KByte just to add a single line ? 
> Was that really needed ?
> 
> And as a closing remark:
> Your post is full of agression (I /assume/ stemming from frustration) and 
> demands that someone, /anyone/ make the cause of it go away.     Maybe you 
> should take some time off and after it start with something less 
> antagonistic to you ?
> 
> If not than perhaps just try to make smaller steps and regard every problem 
> on its own and solving them their own milestones (instead of having a 
> single, (much to) far away milestone finishing the whole project) ?
> 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

I dump the text to prove how stupid it is that you can't break up a textblock into parts, in HTML although you can create a SRC for every damn script your produce, and you can create a CSS for every stylesheet you decide to use.

But for some reason the idiots at W3 will not let you load textblocks "as just textblocks".

My code have blocks that are not frames, they are in some case dynamic and hidden behind for example buttons so they will not work using iframe or innerHTML, unless i start to make full frames.

I am not interested in a "PHP solution that is very good handling textblocks"  i am not interested in installing and setup a PHP server to be able to run a script. 

The functionality to divide a text into blocks seems as basic as it can be, so one can wonder the reason for it not to be there.

Well you can try to break out a fold out button "<tr><td>incapsulated html</td></tr>" and see what happens when you try to implement with iframe or inner html.

I already did.

https://midisequenser.000webhostapp.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37181

Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 13:18:51 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 10:15:32 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> > Jonas,
> > 
> > > Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
> > > https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp
> > ...
> > > InnerHTML suffers from same paradigm, it will do weird thing with the URL
> > > you try to load dynamically using. "Like frame it"
> > 
> > Maybe the second is the reason for the first ?
> > 
> > > Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking 
> > > frame
> > 
> > Than don't use them.  Your choice.
> > 
> > > i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.
> > 
> > And that one has, according to you, a problem.   So, again, your choice: Use 
> > a method that works (like an iframe), or keep bashing your head against 
> > something that does not work for you.
> > 
> > And for the record: NO YOU DON'T.
> > 
> > You are trying to paste *HTML* block, and demand it should "just work". 
> > And there you've got another problem: Not all browsers handle that (runtime 
> > parsing) the same way.  In other words: Such a HTML content pasting could 
> > work in one browser, fail on another, and give unexpected results on a 
> > third.
> > 
> > > It is fucking time you implement a insert or a subtext tag.
> > 
> > Ehh... pardon me ?    Who is that "you" you are talking to there ?    We're 
> > all persons like you, either looking for help ourselves, or trying to help 
> > with our own experiences.   We definitily have /no/ power to add or change 
> > anything to the HTML spec or your current browser.
> > 
> > 
> > Kiddo, stop ranting and start to decribe your problem /and what you did to 
> > try to solve it/.   Hint: rejecting help from w3schools (or other sources) 
> > because you do not understand their solution is not the way to go.
> > 
> > Heck, they even gave you a full solution on a silver platter.   The /least/ 
> > you could do is to copy-paste it into a testpage and see if it will actually 
> > solve your problem.
> > 
> > 
> > Also, your follow-up message is a bit big, and as such rejected by some 
> > "text only" newsgroups / newsgroup servers (I could see the the message in 
> > the list, but had to switch to another to be able to actually read it).
> > 
> > A question though: Why are you dumping 64KByte of script into a newsgroup 
> > message when less than single would be enough to show your current problem ? 
> > Are you perhaps expecting that we just fix your script ?   If you do than I 
> > expect to be payed my standard rate.  :-)
> > 
> > And a second follow-up message quoting 64KByte just to add a single line ? 
> > Was that really needed ?
> > 
> > And as a closing remark:
> > Your post is full of agression (I /assume/ stemming from frustration) and 
> > demands that someone, /anyone/ make the cause of it go away.     Maybe you 
> > should take some time off and after it start with something less 
> > antagonistic to you ?
> > 
> > If not than perhaps just try to make smaller steps and regard every problem 
> > on its own and solving them their own milestones (instead of having a 
> > single, (much to) far away milestone finishing the whole project) ?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Rudy Wieser
> 
> I dump the text to prove how stupid it is that you can't break up a textblock into parts, in HTML although you can create a SRC for every damn script your produce, and you can create a CSS for every stylesheet you decide to use.
> 
> But for some reason the idiots at W3 will not let you load textblocks "as just textblocks".
> 
> My code have blocks that are not frames, they are in some case dynamic and hidden behind for example buttons so they will not work using iframe or innerHTML, unless i start to make full frames.
> 
> I am not interested in a "PHP solution that is very good handling textblocks"  i am not interested in installing and setup a PHP server to be able to run a script. 
> 
> The functionality to divide a text into blocks seems as basic as it can be, so one can wonder the reason for it not to be there.
> 
> Well you can try to break out a fold out button "<tr><td>incapsulated html</td></tr>" and see what happens when you try to implement with iframe or inner html.
> 
> I already did.
> 
> https://midisequenser.000webhostapp.com

Feel free try to embed the W3 example, behind a button like above.
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_iframe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37182

Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 15:40:31 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 13:18:51 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> > Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 10:15:32 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> > > Jonas,
> > > 
> > > > Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
> > > > https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp
> > > ...
> > > > InnerHTML suffers from same paradigm, it will do weird thing with the URL
> > > > you try to load dynamically using. "Like frame it"
> > > 
> > > Maybe the second is the reason for the first ?
> > > 
> > > > Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking 
> > > > frame
> > > 
> > > Than don't use them.  Your choice.
> > > 
> > > > i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.
> > > 
> > > And that one has, according to you, a problem.   So, again, your choice: Use 
> > > a method that works (like an iframe), or keep bashing your head against 
> > > something that does not work for you.
> > > 
> > > And for the record: NO YOU DON'T.
> > > 
> > > You are trying to paste *HTML* block, and demand it should "just work". 
> > > And there you've got another problem: Not all browsers handle that (runtime 
> > > parsing) the same way.  In other words: Such a HTML content pasting could 
> > > work in one browser, fail on another, and give unexpected results on a 
> > > third.
> > > 
> > > > It is fucking time you implement a insert or a subtext tag.
> > > 
> > > Ehh... pardon me ?    Who is that "you" you are talking to there ?    We're 
> > > all persons like you, either looking for help ourselves, or trying to help 
> > > with our own experiences.   We definitily have /no/ power to add or change 
> > > anything to the HTML spec or your current browser.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Kiddo, stop ranting and start to decribe your problem /and what you did to 
> > > try to solve it/.   Hint: rejecting help from w3schools (or other sources) 
> > > because you do not understand their solution is not the way to go.
> > > 
> > > Heck, they even gave you a full solution on a silver platter.   The /least/ 
> > > you could do is to copy-paste it into a testpage and see if it will actually 
> > > solve your problem.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Also, your follow-up message is a bit big, and as such rejected by some 
> > > "text only" newsgroups / newsgroup servers (I could see the the message in 
> > > the list, but had to switch to another to be able to actually read it).
> > > 
> > > A question though: Why are you dumping 64KByte of script into a newsgroup 
> > > message when less than single would be enough to show your current problem ? 
> > > Are you perhaps expecting that we just fix your script ?   If you do than I 
> > > expect to be payed my standard rate.  :-)
> > > 
> > > And a second follow-up message quoting 64KByte just to add a single line ? 
> > > Was that really needed ?
> > > 
> > > And as a closing remark:
> > > Your post is full of agression (I /assume/ stemming from frustration) and 
> > > demands that someone, /anyone/ make the cause of it go away.     Maybe you 
> > > should take some time off and after it start with something less 
> > > antagonistic to you ?
> > > 
> > > If not than perhaps just try to make smaller steps and regard every problem 
> > > on its own and solving them their own milestones (instead of having a 
> > > single, (much to) far away milestone finishing the whole project) ?
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Rudy Wieser
> > 
> > I dump the text to prove how stupid it is that you can't break up a textblock into parts, in HTML although you can create a SRC for every damn script your produce, and you can create a CSS for every stylesheet you decide to use.
> > 
> > But for some reason the idiots at W3 will not let you load textblocks "as just textblocks".
> > 
> > My code have blocks that are not frames, they are in some case dynamic and hidden behind for example buttons so they will not work using iframe or innerHTML, unless i start to make full frames.
> > 
> > I am not interested in a "PHP solution that is very good handling textblocks"  i am not interested in installing and setup a PHP server to be able to run a script. 
> > 
> > The functionality to divide a text into blocks seems as basic as it can be, so one can wonder the reason for it not to be there.
> > 
> > Well you can try to break out a fold out button "<tr><td>incapsulated html</td></tr>" and see what happens when you try to implement with iframe or inner html.
> > 
> > I already did.
> > 
> > https://midisequenser.000webhostapp.com
> 
> Feel free try to embed the W3 example, behind a button like above.
> https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_iframe

You see i do not want to insert a frame "i want to insert the textblock with the code i wrote".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37183

Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 15:43:01 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 15:40:31 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> > Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 13:18:51 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> > > Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 10:15:32 UTC+2 skrev R.Wieser:
> > > > Jonas,
> > > > 
> > > > > Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
> > > > > https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp
> > > > ...
> > > > > InnerHTML suffers from same paradigm, it will do weird thing with the URL
> > > > > you try to load dynamically using. "Like frame it"
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe the second is the reason for the first ?
> > > > 
> > > > > Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking 
> > > > > frame
> > > > 
> > > > Than don't use them.  Your choice.
> > > > 
> > > > > i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.
> > > > 
> > > > And that one has, according to you, a problem.   So, again, your choice: Use 
> > > > a method that works (like an iframe), or keep bashing your head against 
> > > > something that does not work for you.
> > > > 
> > > > And for the record: NO YOU DON'T.
> > > > 
> > > > You are trying to paste *HTML* block, and demand it should "just work". 
> > > > And there you've got another problem: Not all browsers handle that (runtime 
> > > > parsing) the same way.  In other words: Such a HTML content pasting could 
> > > > work in one browser, fail on another, and give unexpected results on a 
> > > > third.
> > > > 
> > > > > It is fucking time you implement a insert or a subtext tag.
> > > > 
> > > > Ehh... pardon me ?    Who is that "you" you are talking to there ?    We're 
> > > > all persons like you, either looking for help ourselves, or trying to help 
> > > > with our own experiences.   We definitily have /no/ power to add or change 
> > > > anything to the HTML spec or your current browser.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Kiddo, stop ranting and start to decribe your problem /and what you did to 
> > > > try to solve it/.   Hint: rejecting help from w3schools (or other sources) 
> > > > because you do not understand their solution is not the way to go.
> > > > 
> > > > Heck, they even gave you a full solution on a silver platter.   The /least/ 
> > > > you could do is to copy-paste it into a testpage and see if it will actually 
> > > > solve your problem.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Also, your follow-up message is a bit big, and as such rejected by some 
> > > > "text only" newsgroups / newsgroup servers (I could see the the message in 
> > > > the list, but had to switch to another to be able to actually read it).
> > > > 
> > > > A question though: Why are you dumping 64KByte of script into a newsgroup 
> > > > message when less than single would be enough to show your current problem ? 
> > > > Are you perhaps expecting that we just fix your script ?   If you do than I 
> > > > expect to be payed my standard rate.  :-)
> > > > 
> > > > And a second follow-up message quoting 64KByte just to add a single line ? 
> > > > Was that really needed ?
> > > > 
> > > > And as a closing remark:
> > > > Your post is full of agression (I /assume/ stemming from frustration) and 
> > > > demands that someone, /anyone/ make the cause of it go away.     Maybe you 
> > > > should take some time off and after it start with something less 
> > > > antagonistic to you ?
> > > > 
> > > > If not than perhaps just try to make smaller steps and regard every problem 
> > > > on its own and solving them their own milestones (instead of having a 
> > > > single, (much to) far away milestone finishing the whole project) ?
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Rudy Wieser
> > > 
> > > I dump the text to prove how stupid it is that you can't break up a textblock into parts, in HTML although you can create a SRC for every damn script your produce, and you can create a CSS for every stylesheet you decide to use.
> > > 
> > > But for some reason the idiots at W3 will not let you load textblocks "as just textblocks".
> > > 
> > > My code have blocks that are not frames, they are in some case dynamic and hidden behind for example buttons so they will not work using iframe or innerHTML, unless i start to make full frames.
> > > 
> > > I am not interested in a "PHP solution that is very good handling textblocks"  i am not interested in installing and setup a PHP server to be able to run a script. 
> > > 
> > > The functionality to divide a text into blocks seems as basic as it can be, so one can wonder the reason for it not to be there.
> > > 
> > > Well you can try to break out a fold out button "<tr><td>incapsulated html</td></tr>" and see what happens when you try to implement with iframe or inner html.
> > > 
> > > I already did.
> > > 
> > > https://midisequenser.000webhostapp.com
> > 
> > Feel free try to embed the W3 example, behind a button like above.
> > https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_iframe
> 
> You see i do not want to insert a frame "i want to insert the textblock with the code i wrote".

I know how to insert both dynamical innerHTML and iFrame problem is that what insert do not relate to the page i wrote, it belongs to a newframe. So it just throw out the fucking HTML because apparently it clueless about the CSS that did belong to the original document.

It is so fucking idiotic it is unbearable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37184

Jonas Thörnvall:

> Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
> https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp
> 
> Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking frame i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.
[...]
> WTF is the problem to get it done? 

To begin with - let's assume, there is a HTML tag <include> where you
include some other HTML:

<include src="somefile.html">

Now let's create some files using this.

part1.html containing:

<include src="part2.html">

part2.html containing:

<include src="part3.html">
<include src="part4.html">

part3.html containing:

<include src="part1.html">
<include src="part2.html">

Maybe you got the problem. Yes, a browser may somehow keep track which
documents already got read and somehow detect endless recursions, but it
doesn't make things easier.

And then - how many people working with HTML would really need this?
0.00001%? Or more?


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37185

Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 20:17:05 UTC+2 skrev Arno Welzel:
> Jonas Thörnvall:
> 
> > Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
> > https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp
> > 
> > Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking frame i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.
> [...]
> > WTF is the problem to get it done? 
> 
> To begin with - let's assume, there is a HTML tag <include> where you
> include some other HTML:
> 
> <include src="somefile.html">
> 
> Now let's create some files using this.
> 
> part1.html containing:
> 
> <include src="part2.html">
> 
> part2.html containing:
> 
> <include src="part3.html">
> <include src="part4.html">
> 
> part3.html containing:
> 
> <include src="part1.html">
> <include src="part2.html">
> 
> Maybe you got the problem. Yes, a browser may somehow keep track which
> documents already got read and somehow detect endless recursions, but it
> doesn't make things easier.
> 
> And then - how many people working with HTML would really need this?
> 0.00001%? Or more?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arno Welzel
> https://arnowelzel.de

Yeah i get that problem as i stated it above, and offered the soulution it is not necessary to create linked nodes URL's, it is fully enough to only allow the src tag within the main document. It is just textblock you do not even need to allow relative URL's outside the "MAIN.HTML" folder. So just relative links no absolute URL's, and maybe just in same folder.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37186

Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 20:17:05 UTC+2 skrev Arno Welzel:
> Jonas Thörnvall:
> 
> > Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
> > https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp
> > 
> > Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking frame i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.
> [...]
> > WTF is the problem to get it done? 
> 
> To begin with - let's assume, there is a HTML tag <include> where you
> include some other HTML:
> 
> <include src="somefile.html">
> 
> Now let's create some files using this.
> 
> part1.html containing:
> 
> <include src="part2.html">
> 
> part2.html containing:
> 
> <include src="part3.html">
> <include src="part4.html">
> 
> part3.html containing:
> 
> <include src="part1.html">
> <include src="part2.html">
> 
> Maybe you got the problem. Yes, a browser may somehow keep track which
> documents already got read and somehow detect endless recursions, but it
> doesn't make things easier.
> 
> And then - how many people working with HTML would really need this?
> 0.00001%? Or more?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arno Welzel
> https://arnowelzel.de

Well i can tell you most people working with a bigger HTML structure would use it "AND USE TABLES" as containers instead of iframes and innerHTML.

THAT IS FACT.

But when idiots have their hand on implementation it becomes cumbersome, intricate, convoluted and unbearable and untractable to work with.

They just do not understand better. As i said they shoul let in people working with layouts from start. They would have told them that the actual article probably should reside in its own file.

But some idiot implementing got the idea wrong and thought that frames was pages in their own, when there already was tables to handle the structural element. A page is a sequential stream of HTML tags, i was thinking it maybe was something about the loadorder of included SRC pages. But i think it is just programmers stupidity. They changed frames into iframes that is possibly even worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37187

Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 20:44:50 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 20:17:05 UTC+2 skrev Arno Welzel:
> > Jonas Thörnvall:
> > 
> > > Is this some weird kind of joke on howto breakdown a text into textblocks.
> > > https://www.w3schools.com/howto/howto_html_include.asp
> > > 
> > > Iframe is such an idiotic concept to begin with i do not want a fucking frame i just want to paste a textblock into a HTML.
> > [...]
> > > WTF is the problem to get it done? 
> > 
> > To begin with - let's assume, there is a HTML tag <include> where you
> > include some other HTML:
> > 
> > <include src="somefile.html">
> > 
> > Now let's create some files using this.
> > 
> > part1.html containing:
> > 
> > <include src="part2.html">
> > 
> > part2.html containing:
> > 
> > <include src="part3.html">
> > <include src="part4.html">
> > 
> > part3.html containing:
> > 
> > <include src="part1.html">
> > <include src="part2.html">
> > 
> > Maybe you got the problem. Yes, a browser may somehow keep track which
> > documents already got read and somehow detect endless recursions, but it
> > doesn't make things easier.
> > 
> > And then - how many people working with HTML would really need this?
> > 0.00001%? Or more?
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Arno Welzel
> > https://arnowelzel.de
> 
> Well i can tell you most people working with a bigger HTML structure would use it "AND USE TABLES" as containers instead of iframes and innerHTML.
> 
> THAT IS FACT.
> 
> But when idiots have their hand on implementation it becomes cumbersome, intricate, convoluted and unbearable and untractable to work with.
> 
> They just do not understand better. As i said they shoul let in people working with layouts from start. They would have told them that the actual article probably should reside in its own file.
> 
> But some idiot implementing got the idea wrong and thought that frames was pages in their own, when there already was tables to handle the structural element. A page is a sequential stream of HTML tags, i was thinking it maybe was something about the loadorder of included SRC pages. But i think it is just programmers stupidity. They changed frames into iframes that is possibly even worse.

Or DIVS as the structural element, but i do not think they want to refer to child and parent passing variables. It so fucking stupid but noone notice, that is what bugging me most. What flatheaded objectoriented programmer came up with the brilliant idea you must refer to the loaded page to access, if your subtext element want to access the Javascript SRC in it and of course vice versa.

This type of questions riddles every javascript programming forum, so it is not just me. But noone ask why it necessary?
It is mindboggling either they love write out the references, or they are braindead, i fear the last may come closer to reality.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/935127/how-to-access-parent-iframe-from-javascript

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37194

On 09.09.19 21:00, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:

> Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 20:44:50 UTC+2 skrev Jonas
> Thörnvall:
[...]
>> Well i can tell you most people working with a bigger HTML
>> structure would use it "AND USE TABLES" as containers instead of
>> iframes and innerHTML.
>> 
>> THAT IS FACT.

Well - I've been work with HTML professionally for more than 20 years
now and I *never* even thought about using iframes to include other
documents.

Iframes are for things like embedding a video or other more complex
content from another server like this one:

<https://arnowelzel.de/en/tour-de-france-for-women>

>> But when idiots have their hand on implementation it becomes
>> cumbersome, intricate, convoluted and unbearable and untractable to
>> work with.

If you don't like HTML, don't use it. There are other markup languages
as well. XML knows includes - <xi:include href="..."/>.


> Or DIVS as the structural element, but i do not think they want to
> refer to child and parent passing variables. It so fucking stupid but
> noone notice, that is what bugging me most. What flatheaded
> objectoriented programmer came up with the brilliant idea you must
> refer to the loaded page to access, if your subtext element want to
> access the Javascript SRC in it and of course vice versa.

How would you do it if you could change the implementation?

> This type of questions riddles every javascript programming forum, so
> it is not just me. But noone ask why it necessary? It is mindboggling
> either they love write out the references, or they are braindead, i
> fear the last may come closer to reality.
> 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/935127/how-to-access-parent-iframe-from-javascript

Think about security and CSRF/XSRF - maybe you get the idea.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37195

Den tisdag 10 september 2019 kl. 17:35:48 UTC+2 skrev Arno Welzel:
> On 09.09.19 21:00, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:
> 
> > Den måndag 9 september 2019 kl. 20:44:50 UTC+2 skrev Jonas
> > Thörnvall:
> [...]
> >> Well i can tell you most people working with a bigger HTML
> >> structure would use it "AND USE TABLES" as containers instead of
> >> iframes and innerHTML.
> >> 
> >> THAT IS FACT.
> 
> Well - I've been work with HTML professionally for more than 20 years
> now and I *never* even thought about using iframes to include other
> documents.
> 
> Iframes are for things like embedding a video or other more complex
> content from another server like this one:
> 
> <https://arnowelzel.de/en/tour-de-france-for-women>
> 
> >> But when idiots have their hand on implementation it becomes
> >> cumbersome, intricate, convoluted and unbearable and untractable to
> >> work with.
> 
> If you don't like HTML, don't use it. There are other markup languages
> as well. XML knows includes - <xi:include href="..."/>.
> 
> 
> > Or DIVS as the structural element, but i do not think they want to
> > refer to child and parent passing variables. It so fucking stupid but
> > noone notice, that is what bugging me most. What flatheaded
> > objectoriented programmer came up with the brilliant idea you must
> > refer to the loaded page to access, if your subtext element want to
> > access the Javascript SRC in it and of course vice versa.
> 
> How would you do it if you could change the implementation?
> 
> > This type of questions riddles every javascript programming forum, so
> > it is not just me. But noone ask why it necessary? It is mindboggling
> > either they love write out the references, or they are braindead, i
> > fear the last may come closer to reality.
> > 
> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/935127/how-to-access-parent-iframe-from-javascript
> 
> Think about security and CSRF/XSRF - maybe you get the idea.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arno Welzel
> https://arnowelzel.de

To not get any problamss i would just implement it to get HTML files from same domain and folder. And only allow the new TAG from originally loaded URL page, so nesting loops can not occur.

<HTML SUB="oohILikeIt.html">This is not visible only a comment about what is loaded</HTML SUB>

It may lack some implementation details though ;). But basicly it is just loading and parse a new html into the existing, checking it is just relative and no URL.

That is what i would have done from start.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37196

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:24:14 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall
<jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:

  <snip>
> And only allow the new TAG from originally loaded URL page,
  <snip>

You don't mean "TAG", you mean "ELEMENT". You should learn something
about HTML before complaining about it.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37208

Jonas Thörnvall:

> To not get any problamss i would just implement it to get HTML files
> from same domain and folder. And only allow the new TAG from
> originally loaded URL page, so nesting loops can not occur.
> 
> <HTML SUB="oohILikeIt.html">This is not visible only a comment about
> what is loaded</HTML SUB>

You should first learn the basics of HTML. This construct is utter nonsense.

1) The thing you describe is an "element" not a "tag".

2) An HTML element usually has an opening tag <name> and a closing tag
</name>, even though there are elements which don't require a closing tag.

3) If there are attributes like "sub", they will *not* be repeated in
the closing tag.

For example - this is corrent:

<p class="something"> ..... </p>

but this *not*:

<p class="something"> ... </p class>

> That is what i would have done from start.

You should first learn how HTML *really* works and how to name things
correctly.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37209

Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 00:59:01 UTC+2 skrev Arno Welzel:
> Jonas Thörnvall:
> 
> > To not get any problamss i would just implement it to get HTML files
> > from same domain and folder. And only allow the new TAG from
> > originally loaded URL page, so nesting loops can not occur.
> > 
> > <HTML SUB="oohILikeIt.html">This is not visible only a comment about
> > what is loaded</HTML SUB>
> 
> You should first learn the basics of HTML. This construct is utter nonsense.
> 
> 1) The thing you describe is an "element" not a "tag".
> 
> 2) An HTML element usually has an opening tag <name> and a closing tag
> </name>, even though there are elements which don't require a closing tag.
> 
> 3) If there are attributes like "sub", they will *not* be repeated in
> the closing tag.
> 
> For example - this is corrent:
> 
> <p class="something"> ..... </p>
> 
> but this *not*:
> 
> <p class="something"> ... </p class>
> 
> > That is what i would have done from start.
> 
> You should first learn how HTML *really* works and how to name things
> correctly.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arno Welzel
> https://arnowelzel.de

Well that is just name conventions, not utterly fascinating if one not an ENTP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37221

On 11.09.19 08:18, Jonas Thörnvall wrote:

> Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 00:59:01 UTC+2 skrev Arno Welzel:
>> Jonas Thörnvall:
>>
>>> To not get any problamss i would just implement it to get HTML files
>>> from same domain and folder. And only allow the new TAG from
>>> originally loaded URL page, so nesting loops can not occur.
>>>
>>> <HTML SUB="oohILikeIt.html">This is not visible only a comment about
>>> what is loaded</HTML SUB>
>>
>> You should first learn the basics of HTML. This construct is utter nonsense.
>>
>> 1) The thing you describe is an "element" not a "tag".
>>
>> 2) An HTML element usually has an opening tag <name> and a closing tag
>> </name>, even though there are elements which don't require a closing tag.
>>
>> 3) If there are attributes like "sub", they will *not* be repeated in
>> the closing tag.
>>
>> For example - this is corrent:
>>
>> <p class="something"> ..... </p>
>>
>> but this *not*:
>>
>> <p class="something"> ... </p class>
>>
>>> That is what i would have done from start.
>>
>> You should first learn how HTML *really* works and how to name things
>> correctly.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Arno Welzel
>> https://arnowelzel.de
> 
> Well that is just name conventions, not utterly fascinating if one not an ENTP.

You dont't get it. I also talked about using tags in the correct way -
and this is not "name conventions" but syntax. You know the meaning of
syntax and semantics?



-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37210

Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 00:59:01 UTC+2 skrev Arno Welzel:
> Jonas Thörnvall:
> 
> > To not get any problamss i would just implement it to get HTML files
> > from same domain and folder. And only allow the new TAG from
> > originally loaded URL page, so nesting loops can not occur.
> > 
> > <HTML SUB="oohILikeIt.html">This is not visible only a comment about
> > what is loaded</HTML SUB>
> 
> You should first learn the basics of HTML. This construct is utter nonsense.
> 
> 1) The thing you describe is an "element" not a "tag".
> 
> 2) An HTML element usually has an opening tag <name> and a closing tag
> </name>, even though there are elements which don't require a closing tag.
> 
> 3) If there are attributes like "sub", they will *not* be repeated in
> the closing tag.
> 
> For example - this is corrent:
> 
> <p class="something"> ..... </p>
> 
> but this *not*:
> 
> <p class="something"> ... </p class>
> 
> > That is what i would have done from start.
> 
> You should first learn how HTML *really* works and how to name things
> correctly.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arno Welzel
> https://arnowelzel.de

But of course you are right. <HTML SUB=""> </HTML> would be the correct formatted tags.

But i think my naming convention was rather smart because now the new "subelement" have the start tag <HTML SUB> instead of <HTML> and we know we do not allow subs within subs so no nesting can occur.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37213

Il 11/09/2019 08:25, Jonas Thörnvall ha scritto:
> But i think my naming convention was rather smart because now the new 
> "subelement" have the start tag <HTML SUB> instead of <HTML> and we 
> know we do not allow subs within subs so no nesting can occur. 


HTML SUB can not be a tag, HTMLSUB could be but not HTML SUB. It's so 
easy to see, and so similar to the IQ tests, that I can't believe you 
have an IQ of 187

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37214

Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 09:19:57 UTC+2 skrev Flng Fck:
> Il 11/09/2019 08:25, Jonas Thörnvall ha scritto:
> > But i think my naming convention was rather smart because now the new 
> > "subelement" have the start tag <HTML SUB> instead of <HTML> and we 
> > know we do not allow subs within subs so no nesting can occur. 
> 
> 
> HTML SUB can not be a tag, HTMLSUB could be but not HTML SUB. It's so 
> easy to see, and so similar to the IQ tests, that I can't believe you 
> have an IQ of 187

It is what it is, i think you ENTP spend much to much time being analretentive about language then is healthy for anyone. That does not mean you are not right, you just spend to much time nitpicking about it.

Be aware that you anyday can be replaced by a dictionary or what worse a syntax AI.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37216

Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 09:33:05 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall:
> Den onsdag 11 september 2019 kl. 09:19:57 UTC+2 skrev Flng Fck:
> > Il 11/09/2019 08:25, Jonas Thörnvall ha scritto:
> > > But i think my naming convention was rather smart because now the new 
> > > "subelement" have the start tag <HTML SUB> instead of <HTML> and we 
> > > know we do not allow subs within subs so no nesting can occur. 
> > 
> > 
> > HTML SUB can not be a tag, HTMLSUB could be but not HTML SUB. It's so 
> > easy to see, and so similar to the IQ tests, that I can't believe you 
> > have an IQ of 187
> 
> It is what it is, i think you ENTP spend much to much time being analretentive about language then is healthy for anyone. That does not mean you are not right, you just spend to much time nitpicking about it.
> 
> Be aware that you anyday can be replaced by a dictionary or what worse a syntax AI.

If i had a syntax AI to ask my little midiproject would be done in no time at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web