|
Mohammad Dayyan wrote: I'm in hurry
Missing the part where that's my problem 
Mohammad Dayyan wrote: Please do it
Ummmmm........no 
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
 However thanks my friend
|
|
|
|
|
What you need to be doing is looking at the code, and seeing what you're duplicating. Pull out the common elements, and then see what you have left.
Try something like:
.css_class1{
background-color: #988F81;
color: #000000;
border: solid 1px #F6F5F2;
border-right-color: #333333;
border-bottom-color #333333;
}
There's further improvements that can be made, but that's a start.
In fact, since you seem to be trying to get a 3d effect on the edges of the border, you could try replacing it with "border-style: inset", or "border style: outset", which probably won't display identically to your first sample, but is a standard style with shorter markup.
eg:
.css_class1{
background-color: #988F81;
color: #000000;
border-style: outset;
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there guys.
I have a CSS file and a HTML file (HTML created by smarty)
I want to the css file load on browser earlier than HTML file.
Can we do it ?
|
|
|
|
|
Mohammad Dayyan wrote: I want to the css file load on browser earlier than HTML file.
Why?
Citizen 20.1.01 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
|
|
|
|
|
In order for the CSS file to load, it must be linked to (by an HTML file). So the answer is no - you can't really do it.
The only way you could achieve a similar result is by pre-loading the CSS somehow, but there's not really much to be gained by doing this in most situations.
Just put the CSS link toward the top of the page, and let the browser get it when it wants it. If you're having problems with the speed, try debugging it using firefox with the YSlow plugin. It gives you a lot of information about the structure of your page, and potential bottlenecks.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I need to validate textboxes run at server in asp.Net but using javascript, exactly using getElementbyId Function in javaScript, How I can do this. Please any body help.
Regards all
|
|
|
|
|
|
if we are using same js file from different asp.net pages.what are different ways to persist javascript global variables through different asp.net pages.
|
|
|
|
|
Could you pass them through the URL of the pages?
--Perspx
"When programming in Visual Basic, you can always know whether a given program will become stuck in a loop and never halt. The answer is 'yes'." - Uncyclopedia
|
|
|
|
|
The entire JS environment goes away (well, mostly) when a new page is loaded. So you must manually save the values somewhere and restore them. You could use cookies to store a limited amount of information client-side, you could post it back to the server (possibly using AJAX if the user would otherwise not be posting anything) and store it somewhere there and then send it back down encoded in any new page requests, or as Perspx suggests you could encode it and modify all URLs on the first page to contain the encoded information, then parse it out again when the destination loads. There are a few other techniques for local storage - you can find a short discussion of them here: http://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2007/01/ajax-performance-local-storage.html[^]
Generally speaking though, "persisting global variables" is the wrong way to think about it. When writing JS, you should always consider the environment as transient, limited to the current page. Anything that needs to persist should be saved explicitly in your code, and the technique for doing so should be a fundamental part of your design since it will affect the user experience. Generally, you should try to minimize the amount of persistance necessary - the more pages stand alone, the easier they are to test and debug, and the better they'll work with users' bookmarks, navigation, etc.
Citizen 20.1.01 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
|
|
|
|
|
But my problem is that neither can i use cookies nor can i post my data in ecrypted form to server through ajax call and need to be persisted in js variable through three different ajax pages.Can you suggest any other trick?
|
|
|
|
|
I suggested two, echoed Perspx for my third suggestion, and linked to several other techniques. I also put in some effort to give you an understanding of why what you seem to seek is fundamentally flawed. What more do you want? 
rajivkalra1982 wrote: Can you suggest any other trick?
Sure. Give up on making web pages and use Flash or Silverlight. That's a trick, a dirty one, and your users will suffer for your trickery.
Or, read what i wrote, explain what you're actually trying to do, and ask an honest question. Taking some time to understand the systems you hope to build on, rather than making wildly inaccurate assumptions, wouldn't hurt either.
Citizen 20.1.01 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just that your editor is using a unicode BOM character to specify the file's encoding. It's perfectly valid, but older software/browsers that don't properly work with unicode may not like it. UTF-8 encoding doesn't need the byte order thing really as it's part of its specification that it's fixed order. Unicode can be an awkward beast to master, but tools are getting better.
If you're getting problems with it, try re-editing the file in another text editor to see if it trims out the code.
More details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte_Order_Mark[^]
By the look of that it seems that there's some interaction with PHP that you may need to be aware of.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
I used smarty template engine.
|
|
|
|
|
In all honesty I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Test the site in a good variety of browsers that your users might be using (especially old browsers that might not work well with unicode).
You're using valid markup, so in my book, you win  If old browsers don't work then they lose (but it still may be worth fixing if your user base requires it)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you stevio.
You're nice.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't delete your post after someone has replied. It junks up the forum with [Message Deleted]
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
I've just been looking at this as a way of reducing load from resources such as JS and images on some sites. It looks like a quick and easy way of offloading static content to a distribution network, which has to be a good thing.
What worries me about it, is there doesn't seem to be (or at least, I can't find) much discussion about the security implications of including HTML and client script code from unknown third party servers.
Is there some kind of security model or checksum system to prevent rogue proxy operators from injecting arbitrary code which could harm site users? Eeek...
|
|
|
|
|
Can't you select a CDN that you know and trust?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, if you want to pay for it One of the benefits of Coral is that it appears to be free. It's also apparently distributed, and it seems that the organisers don't necessarily have control over the behaviour of the individual proxies, and a user (end user or web host) can't specify which to use.
Now obviously free is no good if it means abandoning pretty much all security and control over your website, and handing it over to unknown third parties, which is why I'm trying to figure out if this has been considered and mitigated (via some kind of central control / checksums etc).
With my current understanding, an end user gets content from CDN nodes which are closer to them where possible - which would make it even harder to track down if a rogue node had done something bad to some of your users - you wouldn't know which one, and as a site operator, you probably wouldn't see any evidence that it had happened.
If a node started scanning content for keywords, then serving up competitors or inappropriate sites or content that would be bad. If the node started injecting bad client script for attacks on users that would be terrible - and hard to detect.
Now presumably this is either somehow mitigated, or an accepted risk of such an open and free system - what worries me is that I haven't seen much discussion about it - are people unknowingly at risk, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
|
|
|
|
|
Ah if you're talking free...
This is what the Coral Wiki has to say about it:
Ultimately, we certainly want and hope that many third parties run Coral nodes, so that Coral can grow into a world-wide network of thousands of computers. For now, although the source is available via anonymous CVS, we'd prefer to run a network of several hundred machines on PlanetLab that are under our control, to enable easier maintenance, debugging, and pushing our regular changes, bug-fixes, and new functionality. However, feel free to use Coral regularly! In fact, we welcome your help and feedback as users.
Furthermore, there are more serious security issues we will have to handle once Coral is run on untrusted clients (one can think of the current deployment as "trusted", similar to commercial CDNs.) Until better security protections are in place, we want to retain control over Coral nodes.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh Well sppotted - thanks. From reading the other sections, it seemed that it was already running on untrusted clients.
From the tone of that, it seems that they are at least going to consider the security aspects before doing that.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
