[FX.php List] Re: thoughts on FX.php in an IFRAME?

[Joel Shapiro]

Never mind. (poor old Emily Litella)

I just looked at my test page in Firefox (after testing in Safari)  
and it looks like crap:  the iframe is way too low, their imagemap  
with javascript no longer works, and it's not worth my troubleshooting.

I'll go back to my original plan of using includes within my php  
pages.  I guess I coulda done more testing before posting ;)

Thanks anyway.  Sorry for the bandwidth.

-Joel


On Nov 29, 2006, at 9:39 PM, Joel Shapiro wrote:

> Hi all
>
> A client for whom I'm designing an FX.php site wants the design of  
> the FX part of their site to match the rest of their (static)  
> site.  Their main design includes a wide graphic along the top, and  
> a tall graphic along the left side (both with imagemap links) --  
> all within a body-filling table, with misc. colspans, etc.
>
> The FX.php pages are mostly completed, functionality-wise, but the  
> design doesn't match their new site.  (They've known I've been  
> waiting for their design templates since I started working on the  
> project, but only sent them to me this week -- and they do  
> understand that I'll now need to do some re-designing).
>
> At first I was thinking I'd place their graphics (and respective  
> imagemaps) as included files in my php files.  Then I started  
> thinking maybe it would be easier to just use their base page/ 
> template and place my FX.php site within an IFRAME object in one of  
> their table cells.  I did a quick test and both GET and POST  
> requests seem to work as expected, even though the displayed url  
> remains at the main page (even an .html).
>
> I generally stay away from using frames, but this could be a  
> quicker implementation than re-formatting all my FX.php pages to  
> fit their structure.
>
> Note: Their static site is hosted elsewhere, while their FMSA/WPE  
> server is located in their office.  I haven't tested yet if the  
> main page (that holds the IFRAME) functions differently when  
> located at their external webhost or locally on their FMSA box).
>
> I'd be happy to keep their costs down, but not at the expense of a  
> less stable / weaker etc. site.
>
> Any thoughts/experience/advice?
>
> TIA,
> -Joel