From: dorayme on 22 May 2010 04:41
"A. Deguza" <deguza(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 6:08 pm, dorayme <dora...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > If the links are not specific enough when left as simply
> > <a href="portfolio.html">
> > and the portfolio page is a big one and you want people to link
> > to certain bits of it, then you can target the bits via IDing the
> > element that wraps the particular context on the page (or is
> > merely the first element for the context). For example:
> > <div id="name1">portfolio 1 stuff</div>
> > <div id="name2">portfolio 2 stuff</div>
> > ...
> > <div id="myBigCommercialSite">my big commercial site</div>
> > ...
> > <div id="namen">portfolio n stuff</div>
> > and making the links go like
> > <a href="portfolio.html#myBigCommercialSite">
> As to what you are recommending: Are you saying I can use div id's in
> an href? I looked it up on Internet, don't see any mention of that...
If you want to link to a particular part of a page B from a link
in page A, you ID an element in that part of page B and you link
to it in page A in the way I exampled above.
Perhaps a live example will be more helpful than my markup
Look at the link that returns you to the main article towards the
in particular the bit that goes:
"When done, return to <a href="../page2.php#animation">main
and then look at the markup for the page it returns you to:
in particular at the bit that goes:
"<div id="animation" class="containerSpecial">"
True, when you click the link at the first URL, you will probably
see the URL of the page linked to as
but they are one and the same page, the one with the # sign is
just telling the browser to go to a particular part of the page,
the part that has a unique ID of "animation".
Finally, about not understanding the literal words of my
recommendations, not that I should compare myself in any way:
From: Albert Ross on 23 May 2010 09:54
On Sun, 23 May 2010 09:15:24 -0400, Jeff Thies <jeff_thies(a)att.net>
>Just make a separate page for each project, but have the same set of
>links on each page. Easy, not quite instant, but close enough.
That's what I've ended up doing.
If you read and learn from the clueful ones here and elsewhere your
pages will be small and light so the overhead of reloading the same
duplicated code for each separate page will be low, almost certainly
lower than some of the complex stuff generated by Professional
Webdesigners using Dreamweaver etc.
So long as you don't have masses of pages and keep as much of the
presentation as possible in css, updating the pages can be done with
copy and paste.
If you have a LOT of pages it may be better to go for something more
complex involving SSI, scripts etc. and poking different content into
essentially the same page.
From: Jeff Thies on 23 May 2010 11:19
Albert Ross wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 09:15:24 -0400, Jeff Thies <jeff_thies(a)att.net>
>> Just make a separate page for each project, but have the same set of
>> links on each page. Easy, not quite instant, but close enough.
> That's what I've ended up doing.
> If you read and learn from the clueful ones here and elsewhere your
> pages will be small and light so the overhead of reloading the same
> duplicated code for each separate page will be low, almost certainly
> lower than some of the complex stuff generated by Professional
> Webdesigners using Dreamweaver etc.
I hadn't thought about this until now, but I'm seeing very little to
no Dreamweaver in the mass market sites I peruse. Quite a bit different
than a few years ago. It may be that Dreamweaver simply is not up to the
challenges, or that the maintainers of such sites have hired competent
help. I suspect the change happened about the same time as the shift out
of table based layouts. Certainly Dreamweaver breeds cluelessness where
you hack away until you get the look you want.
Anyhow, these days, very complex layouts can be done simply and with
little extra markup. My standard template sans content is about 2K,
almost nothing on broadband and it could be less. Images and linked
files will stay in cache.
From: A. Deguza on 23 May 2010 15:26
On May 22, 12:48 am, Molly Mockford <nospamnob...(a)mollymockford.me.uk>
> Without a vertical scrollbar on that div, nobody will ever be able to
> read its full content! Have a go with overflow:auto.
> Molly Mockford
> Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph..D.)
> (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Thanks for the comment. I was aware of the no scroll issue. This is
just a mock-up, in the actual page I will recommend the person doing
the page to fit each "project" to the area.
From: A. Deguza on 23 May 2010 15:41
On May 23, 6:15 am, Jeff Thies <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
> Use IFRAMES.
How would you do it with iframes? Content part can be within the
Never done this before...