| 6:29 pm on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
and add the html in where Hello World! is.
| 6:57 pm on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Take a look at AJAX [developer.mozilla.org]
| 7:17 pm on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Eric I think that is what I need. Any idea how to put .html there?
| 7:38 pm on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It sounds like you want to display an html file in a div (or something along these lines). Whilst there are ways this can be done you should probably look at server-side includes first. In any case, without more details about what you want to achieve and why, no one will be able to give you reliable advice.
| 8:55 pm on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 10:59 pm on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Again, more detail required. For instance, if this is going to be place at the bottom of the page and the size is known roughly, you could use an <iframe> without problems (other than an extended blank area at the bootom of the page).
Another way would be to use a hidden <iframe> and write an onload event handler to copy the contents into a <div>. It would work something like this, but I haven't tested the code below.
<iframe name="fudge" onload="copyTo(this,'divId')" height="0" src="default.html">
// fudge.location.href = url;
fudge.src = url;
var div = document.getElementById(divId);
if (div) div.innerHTML = iframe.document.body.innerHTML;
When testing, set the iframe height to something like 100
| 1:50 am on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Could I do that using a server side instead of an Iframe? Iframes take so long to load.
| 2:49 am on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Iframes are no slower than images to load (the mechanism and overheads are identical).
Again, without more detail as to what you want to do and why, no one can give you reliable advice. So far, you haven't even said whether you are using static html or php (or something else).
| 4:29 am on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What is the reason for not wishing to use iframes? You dont wont a solution that has the same problem.
| 6:30 am on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I notice on a couple of exact same rotators I have, replacing it to rotate iframes instead of images, that the iframes rotate at a couple seconds minimum, for a tiny html file or tiny .txt file. Compared to rotating the images which can go very, very, fast in milliseconds even. That is why I wanted to find out other options other than Iframes to see if I could rotate some items faster. Please let me know, thanks.
| 7:10 am on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I take it your main concern is speed? With images this is probably achieved by loading them all from server on initial load (slowing initial page load somewhat), then rotation does not involve going to server at all (very fast). A similar approach could be taken with text/html, but the delay on loading them all on initial page load may be excessive depending on how many and how big you are talking about.
| 10:53 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hi there Dave just realized that was you, will continue to keep checking on the bank situation.
| 11:50 pm on Nov 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
jscript can call pretty much whatever file type you want ..if you know how ;)..preloading in the background saves time ....and jscript calls are usually faster than php ..when the result is rendered on the browser..howver this also depends on the config of the veiwing machine and the other things it is doing ..be they background or not
BTW ..and politeness when asking questions which were not expressed as detailed as you may have thought will get you much more ( free ) help ..or you might try fora where you can be cavalier with the respondants ..but they usually require that you pay to see the answers ..or to get the knowledge that you dont have ..kaled was trying to help ..and needed clarification to do so
| 4:41 am on Nov 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As far as I am aware, loading via an iframe should not be slower than loading any other way. Try loading these files directly, that is type url into browser, is it still slow?
| 7:54 am on Nov 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'll test it that way sometime in the next week. Thanks.