|
|
Posted by robert on 04/21/06 16:40
"Rik" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2a6o0$he1$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
| robert wrote:
| >> yeah it's pretty sweet, but ultimately i'd be looking for html
| >> output, as i will need to make links out of events, etc. it looks
| >> like i might have to alter a class that produces images and
| >> customize it.
| > consider how
| > many browsers there are to support, how differently they render even
| > simple html...then, how difficult it will be to manage it all with
| > html?
| >
| > it can be done...but have you thought of perhaps simply altering the
| > php classes that produce image based charts and tie in html to those
| > key functions you need...say, using image mapping and javascript?
|
|
| Euhm.... saying HTML is rendered very differently on browsers and then
| advising javascript? That's even more of a gamble in different browsers.
euhm's aside. the js is most likely going to handle a non-complex function
like an onclick event. now that's vs. generating an entire html based gannt
chart with all of it's elements and pieces...while maintaining it's visual
aspects, then has to still deliver it's functionality...and that, probably a
js handled onclick event. now, would you like to add more sarcasm?
| I say: if it's possible in HTML, go for it. Semantically logical
| information, and keeping images / client-side script to a minimum
increases
| accessability (?... pff english..) and reduces bandwith and probably
server
| load.
sure it's possible...probably not the best route to go though. you do
realize your arg. for not using client-side code here is that it reduces
bandwidth and server load? let me bring it home...if the client is doing
less of the processing...there must be something else doing more of the
processing...i think that would be the server. ;^) as for bandwidth, if the
server is picking up the load (since you don't want the client to), then any
extra functionality beyond initial delivery of content will mean another
trip to the server to get it...hmmm...let's forget "semantically" and just
stick to the "logical" arguments...perhaps then, you'll grasp it and realize
your above statement is less than well thought out.
now if you can think outside of the "i'm smarter than you" mentality it
seems you prefer, you'd also know that image mapping doesn't have to be
client-side and the server is fully capable of handling as much of this as
you want it too. if you're worried that js won't work in a browser...just
have the server process it. either way, you can't say "have the client
process this to reduce server load" and in the same breath say "client side
processing is a bad idea". what i'm saying is that you can choose a simple
solution without having to completely start from scratch...and it's flexible
enough to work in more than one fashion.
aside from your patronization attempts, why not make yourself useful and
address the op...because surely out of all your responses/criticisms, you
must have more genius to display than "go for it".
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|