I am dumb, I need help

[WMD]

Java and JavaScript have nothing to do with each other.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Don't they ? Actually I've never used java so I wouldn't know ...

[WMD]

Java was created by Sun.  javaScript was created by, I think, Netscape.  They just called it that to capitalize on the Java craze.  I have no idea how they got away with it.

[worker201]

JavaScript is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc., used under license for technology invented and implemented by Netscape.

So there you go.  No mystery at all.  Sun maintains the brand integrity of all things Java.

[worker201]

btw, xylon, here's an example of what the JavaScript does (working okay now):
http://www.triple-bypass.net/brickpics/pimpmech/pimp.htm

Would your replacement script do the same thing?

[xyle_one]

btw, xylon, here's an example of what the JavaScript does (working okay now):
http://www.triple-bypass.net/brickpics/pimpmech/pimp.htm

Would your replacement script do the same thing?

Yes.

[worker201]

With what modifications?  When/where does the text array get filled?

[xyle_one]

Will you be on aim later? It would be easier to do this when I am not at work.

[worker201]

No.  No internet connection at home.

I'd say "fuck it", but I really want to learn how your design works, and what, if anything, about it is better than the one I already have.  For educational purposes, if nothing else.

[piratePenguin]

Code: [Select]



You know you could just use onclick on the img elements.

[xyle_one]

No.  No internet connection at home.

I'd say "fuck it", but I really want to learn how your design works, and what, if anything, about it is better than the one I already have.  For educational purposes, if nothing else.

Ok. Check back tomorrow and you will have answers. You only need to slightly adjust your markup. You will need to add title attributes to your anchors.


EDIT: Updated with code examples.
The benefit in doing it "my" way is that your javascript is completely separated from the markup. I am using the DOM to hook into the markup to give it its behavior.

I did adjust your markup, but only to remove the onclick event handlers and the unordered list of descriptions. The descriptions are now apart of the anchor title for each thumbnail. I suppose I could have added them to the img alt description, or just left them alone and wrote something to handle it. Perhaps you can take what I have started and customize it for your needs.

imageGallery.js

Code: [Select]

function ChangeImageAndText(pic)
{
if(!document.getElementById) return false;

var source = pic.getAttribute("href");
var mainimg = document.getElementById("mainimg");
mainimg.setAttribute("src",source);

if (pic.getAttribute("title")) {
  var text = pic.getAttribute("title");
} else {
var text = "";
}
var description = document.getElementById("text");
if (description.firstChild.nodeType == 3) {
description.firstChild.nodeValue = text;
}
return false;
}

function prepareImageLinks()
{
if(!document.getElementById) return false;
var humpics = document.getElementById("wrapper");
var links = humpics.getElementsByTagName("a");
for( var i=0; i < links.length; i++ )
{
links[i].onclick = function()
{
return ChangeImageAndText(this);
}
links[i].onkeypress = links[i].onclick;
}
}

function addLoadEvent(func) {
  var oldonload = window.onload;
  if (typeof window.onload != 'function') {
window.onload = func;
  } else {
window.onload = function() {
 oldonload();
 func();
}
  }
}

addLoadEvent(prepareImageLinks);

The first function, showPic, handles the image & text swapping. prepareGallery() dynamically adds an onclick event handler to all links within "wrapper". addLoadEvent() is used to load the prepareGallery function when the page is finished loading.

The changes to your markup:

Code: [Select]

Here is where image text will be

If you disable javascript, or are using a crappy browser, then the links simply open the image in the current window. With javascript enabled, the image placeholder is swapped for the value in the href attribute of the anchor.

This could be improved for sure. But it's a start.

The goal would be a complete separation of your behaviors, styles, and markup, so that at is rawest, most simple presentation, the site is still usable.

[piratePenguin]

btw, xylon, here's an example of what the JavaScript does (working okay now):
http://www.triple-bypass.net/brickpics/pimpmech/pimp.htm

Would your replacement script do the same thing?

Wanna see what your page looks like when it's sent as application/xhtml+xml?

http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com/~declan/crap/worker/pimp.xhtml

Hehe

See - in it's current state, no browser is treating the page as XHTML. If they were, they'd throw that error, since it aint well-formed XML

[worker201]

Wanna see what your page looks like when it's sent as application/xhtml+xml?

http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com/~declan/crap/worker/pimp.xhtml

Hehe

See - in it's current state, no browser is treating the page as XHTML. If they were, they'd throw that error, since it aint well-formed XML

I just went there and asked Firefox (1.0.8, fyi) to show me the source.  All the self-close slashes were missing for some reason.  Meaning, it gave this:

Code: [Select]

instead of this:

Code: [Select]

Also the XML opening tag was missing:

Code: [Select]

So what happened, eh?  The page is in fact well-formed, according to W3C guidelines.  I think what happened is that you did a "save webpage" thing or something, and it pulled the page down as HTML, which is how the browser interpreted it.  Check my source and you will see that the code is well-formed, and validates flawlessly.

[piratePenguin]

I just went there and asked Firefox (1.0.8, fyi) to show me the source.  All the self-close slashes were missing for some reason.  Meaning, it gave this:

Code: [Select]

instead of this:

Code: [Select]

Also the XML opening tag was missing:

Code: [Select]

So what happened, eh?  The page is in fact well-formed, according to W3C guidelines.  I think what happened is that you did a "save webpage" thing or something, and it pulled the page down as HTML, which is how the browser interpreted it.  Check my source and you will see that the code is well-formed, and validates flawlessly.

Bah, didn't recall that save page as fucked everything up.

But anyhow when I wget'ed the page it rendered the same as XHTML.

Lucky there's no background colour set

(then it would be this versus this)

btw one of the selling points of XHTML is that you don't have to go to the W3C validator to catch well-formedness errors

[xyle_one]

Why does it matter? Not all browsers support the proper mime type to serve an XHTML1.1 Strict page anyways.