|
Is this a right way to put the flash in a page... and that having a link to other page???
<codebase="http: download.macromedia.com="" pub="" shockwave="" cabs="" flash="" swflash.cab<a="" href="http://www.page.com" target="_blank"><embed src="../Ads/ad.swf" quality="high" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" width="468" height="60" />
The flash appears... but the link doesnt work??
|
|
|
|
|
SPS wrote:
The flash appears... but the link doesnt work??
Link to what?
Here is a good article on embedding Flash into a HTML page: Flash Satay[^] from AlistApart.com
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
Colin Davies wrote:
...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edit your message, and click the "display this message as-is" box under the edit box, and it'll show your html as source, rather than trying to parse it, like it has here
--
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
|
|
|
|
|
The problem was different and fixed... see my other reply for the mistake that had happnd....
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
the code seems okay to me. Don't you have the link(s) in the flash itself? I don' see any in the html code you listed.
mark
|
|
|
|
|
BlondeGuyInNC wrote:
Don't you have the link(s) in the flash itself?
This was the problem... I fixed that just now. Thanks.....
|
|
|
|
|
I just created a C++ Managed Web Service and now it's residing on my
'Localhost'. I want to copy it to another web server, but I cannot
find the "Copy Project" option under the "Project" menu. (This option did exist when I was working with ASP.NET applications, but I can't find it when I work with C++ web applications/services)
I also tried creating a Web Deployment project, but I realize that I
cannot run the Windows installer file on the other server because it
belongs to my web host. It is not my own server. After copying the
installer files to that server, I do not know how to remotely execute
it.
How can I work around these problems to deploy my web service on that
server? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
How can I redirect a user to another page and not have the second page's URL show up in the browser's address bar.
For example, let's say I want the user to type in http://www.server1.com/agent and for the default.asp page to redirect to http://www.server2.com/agent. I don't want the user to see that they're on server2. Can this be done?
Cheers,
Tom Archer
Author - Inside C#, Visual C++.NET Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Tom,
Response.Redirect puts a code in the HTTP header that is sent back to the requesting browser that tells the browser to request the next page. That means you've made a roundtrip (to the server, which is expensive) and the URL will show up in the browser's address bar.
You might be able to use the Server.Transfer method if your site is running on IIS 5. Server.Transfer actually serves up the new file behind the scenes, it's all done server-side. The original URL will remain in the browser's address bar.
Server.Transfer, however, is not a silver bullet. For one thing, you can't append a querystring. You can't Server.Transfer outside of your site.
<From MSDN>
When you call Server.Transfer, the state information for all the built-in objects will be included in the transfer. This means that any variables or objects that have been assigned a value in session or application scope will be maintained. In addition, all of the current contents for the request collections will be available to the .asp file receiving the transfer.
If the path you specify in the input parameter is for an .asp file in another application, the .asp file will execute as if it were in the application that contains the Server.Transfer command. In other words, all variables and objects that have been given application scope either by other .asp files in the application or by the application's Global.asa file will be available to the called .asp file. However, the path parameter must not contain an query string or ASP returns an error.
Server.Transfer acts as an efficient replacement for Response.Redirect. Response.Redirect tells the browser to request a different page. Since a redirect forces a new page request, the browser has to make two round trips to the Web server, and the Web server has to handle an extra request. IIS 5.0 introduced a new function, Server.Transfer, which transfers execution to a different ASP page on the server. This avoids the extra round trip, resulting in better overall system performance, as well as a better user experience.
</From MSDN>
Finally, if you can't use Server.Transfer (not using IIS 5), check out this article:
Simulate Server.Execute and Server.Transfer in ASP 2.0
http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/ASPscripts/PrintPage.asp?REF=/webtech/042602-1.shtml
Good Luck.
|
|
|
|
|
From "Professional Active Server Pages 3.0".
In ASP 3.0 and IIS 5.0 we can avoid the need to use client-side redirection with 2 method : Execute and Transfer.They cause control to be passed immediately to another page which can be an ASP script page or something else.
The difference between them is that Execute method 'calls' the other page, much like we call a subroutine. When the other page or resource has completed execution or streaming to the client, control pass back to the statement following the call to the Execute method in the original page, and execution continues from there. When we use the Transfer method, control does not pass back to the original page, and execution stops at the end of the page or resource we trasnferred control to.
Hope it can be useful.
Michela
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Michela,
However, Transfer displays the current url and Execute won't work on fully qualified urls. Therefore, I went with the frameset idea.
Cheers,
Tom Archer
Author - Inside C#, Visual C++.NET Bible
|
|
|
|
|
What are the differences between IIS and Personal Web Server? Can you host a site using PWS or does it impose limitations on you? Could people outside of your network or your own machine view your webpages as easily with either one?
|
|
|
|
|
Think of PWS as Wordpad - comes free with Windows, you can write your basic letter, and even the possibility of professional documents. However, this isn't what it was made for. Think of IIS as Word. It's a professional tool. Although, it does come free with XP Pro now. Note that it doesn't come with XP Home, and PWS also won't run on XP Home.
PWS is fine for testing your own stuff (although it can be a pig to get working sometimes). And people will be able to view your site if it is hosted on PWS, although it would be interesting to see how much traffic it could handle (I've never hosted anything live on it, sorry). IIS is for professional hosting if you are expecting a lot of hits.
I knew it would end badly when I first met Chris in a Canberra alleyway and he said 'try some - it won't hurt you'.....
- Christian Graus on Code Project outages
|
|
|
|
|
anonymous wrote:
What are the differences between IIS and Personal Web Server?
I ithink the reason for me as a developer it that I can host multiple sites (different port numbers, or ip addresses) off my machine.  Where with PWS you have one site with multiple virtual directories that act as sites (same ip. different folders). 
If you have the choice use 2000 Server. It runs most games now days, and you can turn off the rest of the features you dont want to use.
Hope this helps,
Joan
|
|
|
|
|
put it this way - it's incredibly easy to do things like access the c:\ drive of a machine with PWS installed. Microsoft may have fixed it with later versions, but I managed to remotely crash a friend's 98 machine when he was testing AWS on it, using the con\con trick 
--
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi....
I have some problem with include files....
My site has many sub, sub-subdirectories like.. /home has sub-directories that looks like /home/1, /home/2, /home/3
And /home/1, /home/2, /home/3 has its own sub-directories that looks as /home/1/1a, /home/1/1b, /home/2/2a, /home/2/2b, /home/2/2c, /home/3/3a, /home/3/3b etc.
I try to include a file @ /home/include/ from the .asp file in the /home/2/2a directory. It loads fine and works good. When I click a link from that file (now I am in /home/2/2a) for a file @ /home/. It displays 404-file not found error.
I tried this with <include file=""> and also <include virtual=""> methods. But both gives me problem. Any suggestion please.....
- SPS
|
|
|
|
|
SPS wrote:
When I click a link from that file (now I am in /home/2/2a) for a file @ /home/. It displays 404-file not found error.
Ok I am not sure what the include files have to do with 404 errors but here is some info which may help.
HTML includes a very helpful element: <base href="" />
Basically what it does is tell the browser that all relative URLs are to be prefixed with the value of the href attribute.
So I could have the following HTML:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<base href="http://www.notinkansas.com/" />
</head>
<body>
<a href="about.htm"><img src="res/img/test.png" /></a>
</body>
</html>
You could place that HTML file in any sub-directory of notinkansas.com but the IMG and A elements will find the right file.
Just be careful though as it screws ASP.NET forms up and you have to use some JavaScript to sort it out.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
Colin Davies wrote:
...can you imagine a John Simmons stalker !
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote:
relative URLs
This is comething I guessed. And, will give a try.
If that thing doesnt seem to be a good solution.. I will have to re-organize and remove the subdirectories... as it has very few files in them right now.
Thanks..
|
|
|
|
|
I designed my site with 3 frames page. One as a banner, one for left navigation, one as the main content page.
Finally, my left navigation got biger and.... there are two scroll bars in my site. I need to remove the scroll bar. I wanna remove it...
Any simple proceess for it????
|
|
|
|
|
 Yeah, get rid of the frames;).
Generally speaking, frames are deriled in web development these days. There are better technologies to do what you are looking for, that will do the same thing better, easier and allow for better expansion and extensibility of your site.
They are also not complaint with the modern HTML standards.
Try looking at using tables to do what you want. Table design for a web page is more complicated than using frames, but it's easier to expand and modify than using frames. Plus you get back more screen area, which is always valuable.
If you want something that is really cool, look at using CSS ( Cascading Style Sheets ). You can do some amazing things with them, assuming your users have a compatible browser ( IE 5.5 or better, Mozilla 1.2 or better, Opera 6 ).
Yes, you may face a learning curve with all this, but you will be so much better off in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah.... CSS is what I am planning to migrate to, and I thought of giving a chance of survival with the existing frames, like synchronising two frames (?!?!) and get my job done in few minutes. I know its going to be days,, if I need to put all the pages into the tables....
Thanks for the advice...
|
|
|
|
|
You can sync between different frames, but your looking at some complex JavaScript to do it. With CSS and compliant HTML code there is still some JavaScript involved, but it's no where near as complex.
You may want to start simple. Maybe move one of the frames over to the table, and then the other. You will need to get the feel for using tables to do what you need to do.
Also, if you are using a webserver such as Apache or IIS 4.0+, consider using SSI ( Server Side Includes ) to help ease layout and consistancy (sp?) issues. But don't worry about that until you get a design that your users are comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.... finally.... I will be moving to CSS.. for time being, I am trying to adjust with the existing frames stuff....
Thanks for the reply
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
