I've been asked to make form menu which will take users to a new page.
What's the best way to do this, if I want to ensure that users without
JavaScript can use it too?

Daniele

D.M. Procida wrote:
> I've been asked to make form menu which will take users to a new page.
> What's the best way to do this, if I want to ensure that users without
> JavaScript can use it too?

It's easy to got to one page - that's what the "action" attribute's for, 
but I assume you mean that the form's being used to choose which of 
several pages to go to next.

As far as I can see, either javascript or server side scripting is need 
for that.

-- 
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444         Mob: 07976 263827

anahata <anahata@reply-to.address> wrote:

> > I've been asked to make form menu which will take users to a new page.
> > What's the best way to do this, if I want to ensure that users without
> > JavaScript can use it too?
> 
> It's easy to got to one page - that's what the "action" attribute's for,
> but I assume you mean that the form's being used to choose which of 
> several pages to go to next.

Exactly.

> As far as I can see, either javascript or server side scripting is need
> for that.

JavaScript presents a problem for anyone without a capable browser, and
server-side scripting presents its own issues. I dislike those
navigation menus anyway, but apparently they simply must have it.

Daniele

real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) writes:

> I've been asked to make form menu which will take users to a new page.
> What's the best way to do this, if I want to ensure that users without
> JavaScript can use it too?

A server-side script is the usual way.  You can use client-side code
to cause the form be submitted when an item is selected, but I prefer
to offer the same interface regardless of local script settings. 

-- 
Ben.

"D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
message 
news:1i5vf8v.1lw7tod1hr1sj0N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
> anahata <anahata@reply-to.address> wrote:
>
>> > I've been asked to make form menu which will take users to a new 
>> > page.
>> > What's the best way to do this, if I want to ensure that users 
>> > without
>> > JavaScript can use it too?
>>
>> It's easy to got to one page - that's what the "action" attribute's 
>> for,
>> but I assume you mean that the form's being used to choose which of
>> several pages to go to next.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> As far as I can see, either javascript or server side scripting is 
>> need
>> for that.
>
> JavaScript presents a problem for anyone without a capable browser, 
> and
> server-side scripting presents its own issues. I dislike those
> navigation menus anyway, but apparently they simply must have it.
>

Why not just use the <noscript>...</noscript> tag, containing the 
[Go!] (!!!) 'button' for none script browsers, leaving space for a 
'button' within the page layout? JS enabled browsers go automatically, 
non JS enabled browsers get the 'button'.
-- 
Regards J.

Message-ID:
<1i5vf8v.1lw7tod1hr1sj0N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>
from D.M. Procida contained the following:

>> As far as I can see, either javascript or server side scripting is need
>> for that.
>
>...
>server-side scripting presents its own issues.

In what way?  Hosting?  The script is very simple.
-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

:Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:

> > JavaScript presents a problem for anyone without a capable browser,
> > and
> > server-side scripting presents its own issues. I dislike those
> > navigation menus anyway, but apparently they simply must have it.
> >
> 
> Why not just use the <noscript>...</noscript> tag, containing the 
> [Go!] (!!!) 'button' for none script browsers, leaving space for a 
> 'button' within the page layout? JS enabled browsers go automatically,
> non JS enabled browsers get the 'button'.

Good question. You'll like the answer.

The answer is that the very expensive proprietary CMS I am required to
work with strips out <noscript> tags (along with several others, such as
<abbr>, not to mention lengths in ems).

Daniele

D.M. Procida wrote:
> :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> 
>>> JavaScript presents a problem for anyone without a capable browser,
>>> and
>>> server-side scripting presents its own issues. I dislike those
>>> navigation menus anyway, but apparently they simply must have it.
>>>
>> Why not just use the <noscript>...</noscript> tag, containing the 
>> [Go!] (!!!) 'button' for none script browsers, leaving space for a 
>> 'button' within the page layout? JS enabled browsers go automatically,
>> non JS enabled browsers get the 'button'.
> 
> Good question. You'll like the answer.
> 
> The answer is that the very expensive proprietary CMS I am required to
> work with strips out <noscript> tags (along with several others, such as
> <abbr>, not to mention lengths in ems).

Oh, please, name and shame the guilty party.

Mark
-- 
http://mark.goodge.co.uk

"D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
message 
news:1i5vlkj.1d9z1idl8lxrvN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
> :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>> Why not just use the <noscript>...</noscript> tag,
<snip>
>
> Good question. You'll like the answer.
>
> The answer is that the very expensive proprietary CMS I am required 
> to
> work with strips out <noscript> tags (along with several others, 
> such as
> <abbr>, not to mention lengths in ems).
>

Head, Wall, Bash!
-- 
Regards J.

Mark Goodge  wrote:

> >> Why not just use the <noscript>...</noscript> tag, containing the 
> >> [Go!] (!!!) 'button' for none script browsers, leaving space for a
> >> 'button' within the page layout? JS enabled browsers go automatically,
> >> non JS enabled browsers get the 'button'.
> > 
> > Good question. You'll like the answer.
> > 
> > The answer is that the very expensive proprietary CMS I am required to
> > work with strips out <noscript> tags (along with several others, such as
> > <abbr>, not to mention lengths in ems).
> 
> Oh, please, name and shame the guilty party.

It's Rhythmyx: <http://www.percussion.com/>.

In my opinion, it's not fit for purpose.

Daniele

In message
<1i5vlkj.1d9z1idl8lxrvN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>,
D.M. Procida  writes

>The answer is that the very expensive proprietary CMS I am required to
>work with strips out <noscript> tags (along with several others, such
>as <abbr>, not to mention lengths in ems).

Wikipedia strips out "abbr".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
            *  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <http://www.no2id.net/>
            *  Free Our Data:  <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
            *  Are you using Microformats, yet: <http://microformats.org/> ?

"Andy Mabbett"  wrote in message 
news:PBV5JxQi9KEHFwHi@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
<snip>
>
> Wikipedia strips out "abbr".
>

Wikipedia strips out people like Mabbett too it seems!...

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:43:30 +0100, Andy Mabbett put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In message
><1i5vlkj.1d9z1idl8lxrvN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>,
>D.M. Procida  writes
>
>>The answer is that the very expensive proprietary CMS I am required to
>>work with strips out <noscript> tags (along with several others, such
>>as <abbr>, not to mention lengths in ems).
>
>Wikipedia strips out "abbr".

To be more precise, Mediawiki (the software that runs Wikipedia) has a
limited subset of permitted HTML tags. Anything not in the permitted
list is stripped.

For a system which permits unrestricted public editing, that's the
right (and only sensible) approach. The question of which tags should
be permitted is, of course, a matter for discussion, and not allowing
something as harmless as <abbr> may well be the wrong decision in this
particular case but the general principle of "all that is not
permitted is forbidden" is correct. And, in any case, the
administrators are free to set whatever permitted tags they want.

For a CMS, though, where editing is carried out by trusted users,
that's the wrong approach. There may be a case for having user
restrictions based on access levels, particularly if some editors are
expected to be unskilled in HTML, but the system administrator should
be free to set or override any general restrictions that are in force.
A CMS which is proprietory (and thus can't easily or legitimately be
modified by end users) and has hard-coded restrictions that can't be
overridden at site level is, as Daniele suggests, simply not fit for
purpose. 

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk   Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"You gotta live with your dreams, don't make them so hard"

Geoff Berrow  wrote:

> >> As far as I can see, either javascript or server side scripting is need
> >> for that.
> >
> >...
> >server-side scripting presents its own issues.
> 
> In what way?  Hosting?  The script is very simple.

Can you recommend a suitable Perl script, that I can give to the
technical services people and ask them to install? (I'd have thought
they'd be able to find something suitable, but they want me to give them
a script.)

Thanks,

Daniele

Message-ID:
<1i62zan.12o9sjak3rj34N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>
from D.M. Procida contained the following:

>> In what way?  Hosting?  The script is very simple.
>
>Can you recommend a suitable Perl script, that I can give to the
>technical services people and ask them to install? (I'd have thought
>they'd be able to find something suitable, but they want me to give them
>a script.)

No I don't.  No php?

-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) writes:

> Geoff Berrow  wrote:
>
>> >> As far as I can see, either javascript or server side scripting is need
>> >> for that.
>> >
>> >...
>> >server-side scripting presents its own issues.
>> 
>> In what way?  Hosting?  The script is very simple.
>
> Can you recommend a suitable Perl script, that I can give to the
> technical services people and ask them to install?

--- cut ---
#!/usr/bin/perl

use CGI qw{param redirect};
my $domain     = 'www.google.com';
my $error_page = 'index.html';
my $path       = param('path');

print redirect("http://$domain/" . (defined($path) ? $path : $error_page));
--- cut ---

would do it.  The path of the perl binary might have to change (tech
services will know what to do here) and you need to change the domain
and the error page.  If you are happy to use the site's index when the
script is called with no proper data you could go even shorter:

--- cut ---
#!/usr/bin/perl

use CGI qw{param redirect};
print redirect("http://www.google.com/" . param('path'));
--- cut ---

This script should be the "action" of a form with an field called
'path'.

-- 
Ben.

Message-ID:  from Ben Bacarisse contained the
following:

>--- cut ---
>#!/usr/bin/perl
>
>use CGI qw{param redirect};
>print redirect("http://www.google.com/" . param('path'));
>--- cut ---
>
>This script should be the "action" of a form with an field called
>'path'.

I tend to be a little more paranoid.  I'd probably pass an integer and
use that to look up a page to redirect to from an array.

-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Ben Bacarisse  wrote:

> > Can you recommend a suitable Perl script, that I can give to the
> > technical services people and ask them to install?
> 
> --- cut ---
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> 
> use CGI qw{param redirect};
> my $domain     = 'www.google.com';
> my $error_page = 'index.html';
> my $path       = param('path');
> 
> print redirect("http://$domain/" . (defined($path) ? $path : $error_page));
> --- cut ---

Thanks, that's very kind.

Daniele

Geoff Berrow  writes:

> Message-ID:  from Ben Bacarisse contained the
> following:
>
>>--- cut ---
>>#!/usr/bin/perl
>>
>>use CGI qw{param redirect};
>>print redirect("http://www.google.com/" . param('path'));
>>--- cut ---
>>
>>This script should be the "action" of a form with an field called
>>'path'.
>
> I tend to be a little more paranoid.

How do you know how paranoid I am? :-)

>  I'd probably pass an integer and
> use that to look up a page to redirect to from an array.

There are situations where I'd do that too, but I thought about it
quite hard and I could not see any way in which the above could end up
any worse than something that could simply be entered as a URL.

To the OP:  I should also have said that you can do this by using your
server's URL matching and re-writing capabilities.  This is sometimes
configurable by "mortal" web admins and avoids having to have anything
installed.

-- 
Ben.

D.M. Procida wrote:
> :Jerry: <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > > JavaScript presents a problem for anyone without a capable browser,
> > > and
> > > server-side scripting presents its own issues. I dislike those
> > > navigation menus anyway, but apparently they simply must have it.
> > >
> >
> > Why not just use the <noscript>...</noscript> tag, containing the
> > [Go!] (!!!) 'button' for none script browsers, leaving space for a
> > 'button' within the page layout? JS enabled browsers go automatically,
> > non JS enabled browsers get the 'button'.
>
> Good question. You'll like the answer.
>
> The answer is that the very expensive proprietary CMS I am required to
> work with strips out <noscript> tags (along with several others, such as
> <abbr>, not to mention lengths in ems).
>
WTF? That just sounds odd at best.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Message-ID:  from Ben Bacarisse contained the
following:

>
>>  I'd probably pass an integer and
>> use that to look up a page to redirect to from an array.
>
>There are situations where I'd do that too, but I thought about it
>quite hard and I could not see any way in which the above could end up
>any worse than something that could simply be entered as a URL.

Nor I, but I've been caught out like that before.  I think that
restricting options is good practice.

-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

D.M. Procida  wrote:

> > Why not just use the <noscript>...</noscript> tag, containing the 
> > [Go!] (!!!) 'button' for none script browsers, leaving space for a 
> > 'button' within the page layout? JS enabled browsers go automatically,
> > non JS enabled browsers get the 'button'.
> 
> Good question. You'll like the answer.
> 
> The answer is that the very expensive proprietary CMS I am required to
> work with strips out <noscript> tags (along with several others, such as
> <abbr>, not to mention lengths in ems).

Oh, and <optgroup>. I don't think I mentioned <optgroup>.

But that would only matter if you cared about things like usability and
accessibility of menus.

Daniele