On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:12, MikeB wrote:
> Came across this entry as a user comment in the php.net manual.
>
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.exceptions.php#100089
>
> Couldn't see how to report it so it could be removed.
>
> Maybe someone that knows how can tell me, or report it themsel
Came across this entry as a user comment in the php.net manual.
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.exceptions.php#100089
Couldn't see how to report it so it could be removed.
Maybe someone that knows how can tell me, or report it themselves?
Thanks,
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 20:57, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > i'm not sure that addresses my post -- it doesn't make grammatical
> > sense to state that something is unavailable "since" something that is
> > yet to be officially released.
>
> In mo
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 16:59, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > i don't see a separate mailing list for documentation so is this
> > where i would point at oddities in the manual? as in, here:
> >
> > http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.variables.exte
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 21:04, Daniel Brown wrote:
>
> Indeed. It would probably be better to read, "Unavailable as of
> PHP 6." I'll patch that in the XML sources now, and the next time the
> manual rebuilds, the changes will take effect.
Future builds will appear as hinted in the follo
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 20:57, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> i'm not sure that addresses my post -- it doesn't make grammatical
> sense to state that something is unavailable "since" something that is
> yet to be officially released.
In most cases, you'd be absolutely correct but PHP is a
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 16:59, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> i don't see a separate mailing list for documentation so is this
> where i would point at oddities in the manual? as in, here:
>
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.variables.external.php
>
> we read:
>
> "// Unavailable since PHP 6.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i don't see a separate mailing list for documentation so is this
> > where i would point at oddities in the manual? as in, here:
> >
> > http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.variables.external.php
> >
> > we read:
> >
> >
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i don't see a separate mailing list for documentation so is this
> where i would point at oddities in the manual? as in, here:
>
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.variables.external.php
>
> we read:
>
> "// Unavailable since PHP 6."
>
> that just looks weird, n
i don't see a separate mailing list for documentation so is this
where i would point at oddities in the manual? as in, here:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.variables.external.php
we read:
"// Unavailable since PHP 6."
that just looks weird, no?
rday
--
==
On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:03 -0500, Andrew Ballard wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan
> wrote:
> > There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
> > Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
> > standard ratified by ISO (whi
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan
wrote:
> There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
> Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
> standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
> didn't explain all the deta
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
>>> Sheridan) wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100,
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
> > Sheridan) wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
> > >
>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
> Sheridan) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> >There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some dif
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley Sheridan)
wrote:
>On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
>
...
>
>There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
>Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:12:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> >I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne
> >department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had
> >to do to accomodate this
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:12:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne
>department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had
>to do to accomodate this gotcha:
>
> Nothing
>
>See, that was tough. Why was it so h
tedd wrote:
> At 1:38 PM -0500 2/10/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> Agreed. Those make sense to demarcate the structure layout of the
>> document... but still, for styling the class makes more sense since it
>> keeps the specificity low and easy to override (especially true for
>> skinnable apps). In
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 19:09 +, Lester Caine wrote:
> Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> > Lester Caine wrote:
> >> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> >> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> >> somewhat premature!
> >> What is ne
At 1:38 PM -0500 2/10/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
Agreed. Those make sense to demarcate the structure layout of the
document... but still, for styling the class makes more sense since
it keeps the specificity low and easy to override (especially true
for skinnable apps). In my experience I've se
Andrew Ballard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
"The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
the standard sidebar." - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thorou
Robert Cummings wrote:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
>> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> "The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
>> the standard sidebar." - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
>
> Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got sm
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relat
Robert Cummings wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
> the asi
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous
Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>>
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar s
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
"aside". Sure it's a
Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>>
>> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
>> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
>> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
>> "aside". Sure it's aside,
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
"aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not e
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
"aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic mean
Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
allowing IE8 to ins
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when ther
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not
IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience,
inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one element
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one eleme
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:56:36PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
>
> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP,
> and produce
> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6,
> and think my
> webpages display correctly on any of
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not
IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience,
inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
What about search engines? Will there be any impact on these,
particularly with regards to semantic content?
I expect semantic markup to (eventually) improve how pages are indexed.
Also, are there any browsers that would fall over with unknown tags? I
know IE use
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Bob McConnell wrote:
>
>> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
>> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
>> browsers. It's a l
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
> > Bob McConnell wrote:
> >
> >> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> >> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> >> browsers. It's a lot less work
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Bob McConnell wrote:
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
around. There are a few minor issues, such as
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:20 -0800, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Bob McConnell wrote:
>
> >
> > Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> > Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> > browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the othe
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still
isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI
requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a
good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it
Bob McConnell wrote:
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
allow
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 11:20 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> From: Ashley Sheridan
> > On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> >> From: Robert Cummings
> >>> Lester Caine wrote:
> James McLean wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 Feb 201
From: Ashley Sheridan
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
>> From: Robert Cummings
>>> Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
>> Maas) wrote:
>>>
Bob McConnell wrote:
From: Robert Cummings
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
web
developers maili
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> From: Robert Cummings
> > Lester Caine wrote:
> >> James McLean wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
> Maas) wrote:
> > as for using IE6 ... WTF .
From: Robert Cummings
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> James McLean wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
> as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
web
> developers mailing list r
Richard Quadling wrote:
On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
technolog
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web
developers mailing list right?
The interesting things in my we
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 09:41 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> >Lester Caine wrote:
> >> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> >> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> >> somewhat premat
At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out b
On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
> heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
> of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
> technology, which could go s
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:02 -0600, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
> > Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> > have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> > somewhat premature!
> > What is needed is someone to kick M$ t
Lester Caine wrote:
> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> somewhat premature!
> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
> allowing IE8 to install on W2k mac
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web
developers mailing list right?
The interesting things in my websites go on behind-t
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
>>as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web
>>developers mailing list right?
>
> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in t
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
>Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clanc...@cybec.com.au schreef:
>> Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 -
>> 0200), that I can
>> open a bookmark in the manual, for example
>> http://www.php.net/man
Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clanc...@cybec.com.au schreef:
> Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 -
> 0200), that I can
> open a bookmark in the manual, for example
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
> But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 11:32 +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
> Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 -
> 0200), that I can
> open a bookmark in the manual, for example
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
> But if I then do a search of any type I get '
Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 - 0200),
that I can
open a bookmark in the manual, for example
http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be displayed'. I
then cannot
reach any page, including th
Richard Quadling wrote:
> $ pecl install haru
> [...]
> $ phd -f pdf -t phppdf -d .manual.xml
I installed haru, yet when I try the phd command, I get a "class
'HaruDoc' not found" error :( Has this happened to anyone else?
James
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe
2009/7/7 Angus Mann :
> Hi all. I realize this question has been asked before and I've found
> responses in the archive, but none of the links work now, or the files they
> point to are old or unsuitable.
>
> I'd like to print the most recent PHP manual to paper, so
Hi all. I realize this question has been asked before and I've found responses
in the archive, but none of the links work now, or the files they point to are
old or unsuitable.
I'd like to print the most recent PHP manual to paper, so I need it in a format
that's suitable. I&#
Lester Caine schreef:
Auto-Deppe, C. Haensel wrote:
Hahaha.. THAT one told exactly what I feel! Thanks :o)))
Also a big thanks to the others who already replied. Waiting for more on
that Great one Jochem!!
If they only want a simple set of pages, then it's probably not worth
the hass
You're not really a PHP developer until you've written your own CMS from
scratch. It's a right of passage to roll your own, realize what a bad idea
it is, and move on to using a full on general CMS that will do 10x what you
can do on you own in 1/10 the effort on your parts.
My own bias is for
Auto-Deppe, C. Haensel wrote:
Hahaha.. THAT one told exactly what I feel! Thanks :o)))
Also a big thanks to the others who already replied. Waiting for more on
that Great one Jochem!!
If they only want a simple set of pages, then it's probably not worth the
hassle of configuring a CMS
Carlos Medina schreef:
Watch him go... there is Carloos, the man infront of all the
others. He
is WAY ahead, and he is gaining more and more speed. He is an adult,
and he
is sooo adult that he can't even take a laugh... see him run from the
humor! Faster and faster he runs... and there
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 08:46 -0400, Jason Pruim wrote:
> Joomla is a large content management system that allows novice people
> to edit the pages without touching the actual design. It's all
> template driven and works quite well. Not the most lightweight
> solution though...
I've used quite
At 11:17 AM +0200 8/28/08, Auto-Deppe, C. Haensel wrote:
Hi all!
And again, a slightly off topic subject for you all from yours truly :o)
I have a "customer" (helicopter company) who is willing to give me some free
flights for a small website.
Now, I have been talking to my sister in law who i
Watch him go... there is Carloos, the man infront of all the others. He
is WAY ahead, and he is gaining more and more speed. He is an adult, and he
is sooo adult that he can't even take a laugh... see him run from the
humor! Faster and faster he runs... and there it is: the goal: an open
c
27;m leaving
jobs half done sometimes.
-TG
- Original Message -
From: "Auto-Deppe, C. Haensel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:17:03 +0200
Subject: [PHP] Manual Coding vs. CMS Systems
> Hi all!
>
> And again, a slightly off topic subject for you
-:- -Original Message-
-:- From: Carlos Medina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-:- Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:48 PM
-:- To: php-general@lists.php.net
-:- Subject: Re: [PHP] Manual Coding vs. CMS Systems
-:-
-:- Auto-Deppe, C. Haensel schrieb:
-:- > -:- -Original Mess
Auto-Deppe, C. Haensel schrieb:
-:- -Original Message-
-:- From: Jochem Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-:- Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:46 PM
-:- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-:- Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
-:- Subject: Re: [PHP] Manual Coding vs. CMS Systems
-:-
-:- Auto-Deppe, C
Joomla is a large content management system that allows novice people
to edit the pages without touching the actual design. It's all
template driven and works quite well. Not the most lightweight
solution though...
On Aug 28, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Govinda wrote:
(is Joomla a kind of wysiwyg e
(is Joomla a kind of wysiwyg editor? Does CMS mean content management
system? ..like blog software?)
I leave the commentary about CMS Systems/Joomla -vs.- hand-coding
to the experts here who have had way more experience with both than I
have...
What I can offer may be considered OT or ju
-:- -Original Message-
-:- From: Jochem Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-:- Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:46 PM
-:- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-:- Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
-:- Subject: Re: [PHP] Manual Coding vs. CMS Systems
-:-
-:- Auto-Deppe, C. Haensel schreef:
-:- > Hi
Auto-Deppe, C. Haensel schreef:
Hi all!
And again, a slightly off topic subject for you all from yours truly :o)
I have a "customer" (helicopter company) who is willing to give me some free
flights for a small website.
Now, I have been talking to my sister in law who is a designer (note:
desig
On Aug 28, 2008, at 5:17 AM, Auto-Deppe, C. Haensel wrote:
Hi all!
And again, a slightly off topic subject for you all from yours
truly :o)
I have a "customer" (helicopter company) who is willing to give me
some free
flights for a small website.
Now, I have been talking to my sister in
Hi all!
And again, a slightly off topic subject for you all from yours truly :o)
I have a "customer" (helicopter company) who is willing to give me some free
flights for a small website.
Now, I have been talking to my sister in law who is a designer (note:
designer, not coder). She said I should
On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
Of course, the question of whether it's a Good Idea to show something
different for a manual Refresh versus META refresh springs to mind...
I can't see why you'd want to do this for anything other than
educational purposes...
Well, as the OP,
On Sat, August 11, 2007 9:39 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 19:36 -0700, Geoff Nicol wrote:
>> Rob,
>>
>> What you suggested, which matches the theory of what I and others
>> suggested, would certainly work as an ID that changes is involved.
>>
>> If you read the specific postin
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 13:47 +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> On 8/12/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 22:11 -0500, Richard Lynch wrote:
> > > You don't do it there.
> > >
> > > You do whatever it is you have to do in the URL before you re-direct.
> > >
> > > Though I
On 8/12/07, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 22:11 -0500, Richard Lynch wrote:
> > You don't do it there.
> >
> > You do whatever it is you have to do in the URL before you re-direct.
> >
> > Though I guess if you want different output on that page, you would
> > n
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 22:11 -0500, Richard Lynch wrote:
> You don't do it there.
>
> You do whatever it is you have to do in the URL before you re-direct.
>
> Though I guess if you want different output on that page, you would
> need to set something somewhere, be it session, database, or a cooki
You don't do it there.
You do whatever it is you have to do in the URL before you re-direct.
Though I guess if you want different output on that page, you would
need to set something somewhere, be it session, database, or a cookie.
On Sat, August 11, 2007 8:25 pm, Geoff Nicol wrote:
> And if the
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 19:36 -0700, Geoff Nicol wrote:
> Rob,
>
> What you suggested, which matches the theory of what I and others
> suggested, would certainly work as an ID that changes is involved.
>
> If you read the specific posting by Richard Lynch, which is what I was
> replying to, you wil
Rob,
What you suggested, which matches the theory of what I and others suggested,
would certainly work as an ID that changes is involved.
If you read the specific posting by Richard Lynch, which is what I was
replying to, you will note he suggest refreshing to a static
'was_meta_refresh_before' l
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 18:26 -0700, Geoff Nicol wrote:
> And if they do a manual refresh on the page you re-directed to, the
> "was_meta_refresh_before" flag will be set.
> How will you tell it from a meta-refresh redirect?
I already explained this in previous email. Go read the history of this
thr
And if they do a manual refresh on the page you re-directed to, the
"was_meta_refresh_before" flag will be set.
How will you tell it from a meta-refresh redirect?
You need to use a cookie or session id. Regardless, by reading the whole
thread and 'cheating off the other students' this has been pre
On Fri, August 10, 2007 6:51 pm, Geoff Nicol wrote:
> That was my first thought as well but you will still have to use a
> session
> variable or cookie for the page following redirect to know it was a
> meta-refresh.
No.
For the page following, you can use some other GET parameter, such as
"was_m
At 2:10 AM +0200 8/11/07, Tijnema wrote:
On 8/11/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, August 10, 2007 1:26 pm, Kevin Murphy wrote:
> I doubt this, but is there any way to determine via PHP if a browser
> was refreshed automatically via a META tag vs the person clicking the
>
On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 02:10 +0200, Tijnema wrote:
> On 8/11/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, August 10, 2007 1:26 pm, Kevin Murphy wrote:
> > > I doubt this, but is there any way to determine via PHP if a browser
> > > was refreshed automatically via a META tag vs the person
On 8/11/07, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, August 10, 2007 1:26 pm, Kevin Murphy wrote:
> > I doubt this, but is there any way to determine via PHP if a browser
> > was refreshed automatically via a META tag vs the person clicking the
> > refresh button?
>
> You could embed some
On Fri, August 10, 2007 1:26 pm, Kevin Murphy wrote:
> I doubt this, but is there any way to determine via PHP if a browser
> was refreshed automatically via a META tag vs the person clicking the
> refresh button?
You could embed something in the META tag's URL such as:
http://example.com?from_me
On 8/10/07, Stut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin Murphy wrote:
> > I doubt this, but is there any way to determine via PHP if a browser was
> > refreshed automatically via a META tag vs the person clicking the
> > refresh button?
>
> Add a GET variable to the URL you put in the meta tag to tell
Hi Kevin,
Friday, August 10, 2007, 7:26:30 PM, you wrote:
> I doubt this, but is there any way to determine via PHP if a browser
> was refreshed automatically via a META tag vs the person clicking the
> refresh button?
You could dynamically generate the meta tag, so it refreshes to your
page w
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
