Is it possible to load the editor without using the iframe ?
Since the <iframe> tag has been removed in XHTML Strict it would be nice to "avoid" it somehow for people trying to stick to that standard..
Since the <iframe> tag has been removed in XHTML Strict it would be nice to "avoid" it somehow for people trying to stick to that standard..
RE: No <iframe> ?
i asked the same question.. no reply ....
RE: No <iframe> ?
Found a fix for you xhtml-strict fans...
More of a hack than anything else:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>Test</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
</head>
<body>
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.writeln('<iframe src="http://www.google.com"></iframe>');
-->
</script>
</body>
</html>
That page contains an iframe, however, it validates as xhtml-1.0 strict.
You could also try and add an iframe using
document.createElement('iframe');
however that's buggy on several platforms, so either the innerHTML or writln method (as above) should be used.
RE: No <iframe> ?
Using an iframe to be the editable section is a nice hack (so is wysiwyg editing in a browser full stop) that allows you to have the editor embedded in the page (rather than the editor BEING the page).
If you want to keep xhtml 1.0 strict you may need to look at either providing a textarea only, having a non-compliant page popup that then posts back to a textarea or finally a java applet or similar that's added using an object tag (being as embed is not part of the spec).
At the end of the day, does it really matter if a single page that the editor resides on isn't in spec? As long as the rest of your site is marked up semantically with layout performed by css I don't see the problem.
RE: No <iframe> ?
That is why im interested in this solution.
RE: No <iframe> ?
Netscape 7 supports iframes .. I just tested fck with Netscape 7.2 and it works fine. Of course this is because it's based on the gecko engine.
No javascript based editor like FCK will ever be truly "cross browser" ... this is because the editable area feature that FCK (and other similar editors) depend on is not a part of any web standard and is implemented differently in some browsers (IE, Gecko) and not at all in some others (Opera, Safari). Well actually Safari is rumoured to now have support, but I bet it's implemented differently again.
FCK supports two browsers mainly because *vast* sections of it have been written twice, once for IE and once for Gecko.
It's not like laying out a document in nice, clean HTML/CSS unfortunately
IMHO, writing out the iframe tag in javascript is just a meaningless hack to trick a validator. It doesn't really make it any more compliant.
RE: No <iframe> ?
But what is worse than than is Netscape on Solaris (mozilla based?) will NOT support iframes. AND Sun (Solaris) has removed support for Netscape anyway. They have started packaging Mozilla (1.6) with their OS (Gnome). It does support iframes, thank God. ..
.But now i have ran accross another problem with this Mozilla 1.6. I added a button for to select some preformated text... but on the Solaris Mozilla.. it give me this error:
Javascript error: Chrome://global/content/globalOverlay.js Line 50
Too much recursion
and then the CPU goes to 100% Util and you have to kill the browser...
Suggestions?