Is there any way to use a web page as a background to another web page?

Thanks in advance.

In article <13ifus8egpmsbe6 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
Glenn Christensen <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:

> Is there any way to use a web page as a background to another web page?
>

You could take a screenshot and use the pic... but other than
that?

--
dorayme

Glenn Christensen <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> writes:

> Is there any way to use a web page as a background to another web page?

You could use CSS to set the z-index of an iframe element. Strictly speaking,
it wouldn't actually be the background, but the visual effect would be the
same as if it were.

That said... why on earth would you want to do such a thing??? :-)

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:50:36 -0700, Glenn Christensen wrote:

> Is there any way to use a web page as a background to another web page?
>
> Thanks in advance.

Unless the background page is your creation and rests on the same server,
you could be guilty of stealing bandwidth. Afterall, the other guy is
paying for his "rights" for his visitors to see "his" work.

Having one overloaded web page is bad enough and you want to double it? So
I trust the background you want is something simple.

richard wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:50:36 -0700, Glenn Christensen wrote:
>
> > Is there any way to use a web page as a background to another web page?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> Unless the background page is your creation and rests on the same server,
> you could be guilty of stealing bandwidth. Afterall, the other guy is
> paying for his "rights" for his visitors to see "his" work.
>
> Having one overloaded web page is bad enough and you want to double it? So
> I trust the background you want is something simple.

May I put off working on your questions until I'm done dealing with
mine? Thank you.

Sherman Pendley wrote:

> Glenn Christensen <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > Is there any way to use a web page as a background to another web page?
>
> You could use CSS to set the z-index of an iframe element. Strictly speaking,
> it wouldn't actually be the background, but the visual effect would be the
> same as if it were.

Thanks, Sherman. I know a little CSS, but will have to look up that
Z-index thingy.
>
> That said... why on earth would you want to do such a thing??? :-)
>
Not yet sure that I want to do it, but I do want to take a look at it. I
bring my forum onto a web page via iFrame. It takes up the left 50% of
the page. The right 50% is another iFrame containing links, news, title
- well, a host of things.

The layout of the page is such that users could see enough of the
background (changing text data) while using the forum to decided whether
or not they wanted to scroll down (repeating background) to below the
forum and read the information. I would like to get away from a link
and/or opening in a window.

This is not a commercial web site.

dorayme wrote:

> In article <13ifus8egpmsbe6 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> Glenn Christensen <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Is there any way to use a web page as a background to another web page?
> >
>
> You could take a screenshot and use the pic... but other than
> that?
>
Dang, Dorayme! I'm not that simpleminded! (grin). But I do appreciate
you taking the time to make a suggestion. The web page I want to use
changes regularly, so the pic idea isn't an option.

In article <13iidkmmoj958a4 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
Glenn Christensen <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:

> > You could take a screenshot and use the pic... but other than
> > that?
> >
> Dang, Dorayme! I'm not that simpleminded! (grin). But I do appreciate
> you taking the time to make a suggestion. The web page I want to use
> changes regularly, so the pic idea isn't an option.

I am sure you are not simple minded, did not mean to imply this!
Actually I had an idea that maybe some script could in effect get
a screen shot and somehow this could be inserted dynamically as a
background image. But have no real idea of how to bring this
about... might be worth asking at alt.php? Or not, if it would
not be "live" enough for you? Good luck anyway.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> In article <13iidkmmoj958a4 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> Glenn Christensen <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > You could take a screenshot and use the pic... but other than
> > > that?
> > >
> > Dang, Dorayme! I'm not that simpleminded! (grin). But I do appreciate
> > you taking the time to make a suggestion. The web page I want to use
> > changes regularly, so the pic idea isn't an option.
>
> I am sure you are not simple minded, did not mean to imply this!
> Actually I had an idea that maybe some script could in effect get
> a screen shot and somehow this could be inserted dynamically as a
> background image. But have no real idea of how to bring this
> about... might be worth asking at alt.php? Or not, if it would
> not be "live" enough for you? Good luck anyway.
>
>
Thank you, lady.

On 31 Oct, 03:50, Glenn Christensen <glen... [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> Is there any way to use a web page as a background to another web page?

Yes, loads of them. I'm not sure I'd recommend any of them though.

What you're literally talking about here (by using terms like
"background") is client-side assembly of a rendered bitmap image.
That's not a good end-result to aim at: it dumps the semantics of text
web documents in favour of pictures, it's inaccessible, and it relies
on the real-time availability of other peoples' servers.

A much better way to do this broad topic of "aggregating content" is
to use server-side processing and to produce final web document that's
still a web document, not just a picture of one. This is standard
aggregation technology these days - use Atom or RSS, either is _far_
easier than trying to scrpae HTML form other sites.

Agggregation also permits caching, so you're not hitting other
peoples' bandwidth so heavily, and you're not so dependent on their
server reliability.

If you want aggregated content as a "background", then SSI to a <div>,
or indeed directly into <iframe> works. Use z-index to control
"layering".

If you really want to, you can render the content to a bitmap (or
aggregate a bitmap) and then use background-image on your page. This
is very easy, but it has the limitations described above. It would all
depend on what you're after - a "browser wallpaper of the day" service
might be cute.

In article <13ij0dcb37vi59a [at] corp.supernews.com>,
Wyngs <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <13iidkmmoj958a4 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> > Glenn Christensen <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> >

> Thank you, lady.

er...

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> In article <13ij0dcb37vi59a [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> Wyngs <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
> >
> > > In article <13iidkmmoj958a4 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> > > Glenn Christensen <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
>
> > Thank you, lady.
>
> er...
>

Whoops! Sorry. Did I have the wrong gender? In thinking back, I guess I
can't remember anything that said you were pretty half of humanity.
(grin)

Andy Dingley wrote:

> On 31 Oct, 03:50, Glenn Christensen <glen... [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Is there any way to use a web page as a background to another web page?
>
> Yes, loads of them. I'm not sure I'd recommend any of them though.
>
> What you're literally talking about here (by using terms like
> "background") is client-side assembly of a rendered bitmap image.
> That's not a good end-result to aim at: it dumps the semantics of text
> web documents in favour of pictures, it's inaccessible, and it relies
> on the real-time availability of other peoples' servers.
>
> A much better way to do this broad topic of "aggregating content" is
> to use server-side processing and to produce final web document that's
> still a web document, not just a picture of one. This is standard
> aggregation technology these days - use Atom or RSS, either is _far_
> easier than trying to scrpae HTML form other sites.
>
> Agggregation also permits caching, so you're not hitting other
> peoples' bandwidth so heavily, and you're not so dependent on their
> server reliability.
>
> If you want aggregated content as a "background", then SSI to a <div>,
> or indeed directly into <iframe> works. Use z-index to control
> "layering".
>
> If you really want to, you can render the content to a bitmap (or
> aggregate a bitmap) and then use background-image on your page. This
> is very easy, but it has the limitations described above. It would all
> depend on what you're after - a "browser wallpaper of the day" service
> might be cute.
>
Many thanks, Andy. I had to print that out for later reference.
Obviously, I have to find out what this layering is all about before I
go further.

In article <13ikpfaqq27cu57 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
Wyngs <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:

> I
> can't remember anything that said you were pretty half of humanity

Modesty prevents me from saying anything about how pretty I am.
And, you are not to know and I do not blame you, your assumption
about the percentage is a tricky one. Is a non-human, for
example, a frog, a percentage of humanity (albeit zero) or not?
<g>

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> In article <13ikpfaqq27cu57 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> Wyngs <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I
> > can't remember anything that said you were pretty half of humanity
>
> Modesty prevents me from saying anything about how pretty I am.
> And, you are not to know and I do not blame you, your assumption
> about the percentage is a tricky one. Is a non-human, for
> example, a frog, a percentage of humanity (albeit zero) or not?
> <g>
>
>
Well, a frog has twice as many chromosomes as a human - so who knows?
But I guess I'm destined not to know. In any case, I will always mind my
manners - just in case. (grin)

****
Still haven't found diddly about z layers - not even at W3C. What I did
find was just a lot of references to it. However, I've only spent a few
minutes looking, so far. (I know it's out there or you people wouldn't
be using it). Heh.

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:45:08 GMT
dorayme scribed:

> In article <13ikpfaqq27cu57 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> Wyngs <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I
>> can't remember anything that said you were pretty half of humanity
>
> Modesty prevents me from saying anything about how pretty I am.
> And, you are not to know and I do not blame you, your assumption
> about the percentage is a tricky one. Is a non-human, for
> example, a frog, a percentage of humanity (albeit zero) or not?
> <g>

I'm sure you are gorgeous - at least if the dumb broad theory has any
validity.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

"Wyngs" <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13il7vhcjg9dvff [at] corp.supernews.com...

> Still haven't found diddly about z layers - not even at W3C.

You probably mean z-index.

--
Richard.

In article <13il7vhcjg9dvff [at] corp.supernews.com>,
Wyngs <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <13ikpfaqq27cu57 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> > Wyngs <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I
> > > can't remember anything that said you were pretty half of humanity
> >
> > Modesty prevents me from saying anything about how pretty I am.
> > And, you are not to know and I do not blame you, your assumption
> > about the percentage is a tricky one. Is a non-human, for
> > example, a frog, a percentage of humanity (albeit zero) or not?
> > <g>
> >
> >
> Well, a frog has twice as many chromosomes as a human - so who knows?
> But I guess I'm destined not to know. In any case, I will always mind my
> manners - just in case. (grin)
>

er... actually, I have no chromosomes, its not like that with me,
there is nothing wet about me... but seeing as you are so nice
like, I think you will find some good, probably *the best*, info
on z indexing at

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#propdef-z-index


> ****
> Still haven't found diddly about z layers - not even at W3C. What I did
> find was just a lot of references to it. However, I've only spent a few
> minutes looking, so far. (I know it's out there or you people wouldn't
> be using it). Heh.

--
dorayme

rf wrote:

>
> "Wyngs" <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13il7vhcjg9dvff [at] corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Still haven't found diddly about z layers - not even at W3C.
>
> You probably mean z-index.
>
>Yes, thank you. The person without chromosomes has me all flustered.

dorayme wrote:

> In article <13il7vhcjg9dvff [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> Wyngs <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
> >
> > > In article <13ikpfaqq27cu57 [at] corp.supernews.com>,
> > > Wyngs <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I
> > > > can't remember anything that said you were pretty half of humanity
> > >
> > > Modesty prevents me from saying anything about how pretty I am.
> > > And, you are not to know and I do not blame you, your assumption
> > > about the percentage is a tricky one. Is a non-human, for
> > > example, a frog, a percentage of humanity (albeit zero) or not?
> > > <g>
> > >
> > >
> > Well, a frog has twice as many chromosomes as a human - so who knows?
> > But I guess I'm destined not to know. In any case, I will always mind my
> > manners - just in case. (grin)
> >
>
> er... actually, I have no chromosomes, its not like that with me,
> there is nothing wet about me... but seeing as you are so nice
> like, I think you will find some good, probably *the best*, info
> on z indexing at
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#propdef-z-index
>
>
Thanks again. Time to quit hogging newsgroup space and go off and learn
something. Later...



> > ****
> > Still haven't found diddly about z layers - not even at W3C. What I did
> > find was just a lot of references to it. However, I've only spent a few
> > minutes looking, so far. (I know it's out there or you people wouldn't
> > be using it). Heh.
>
>

In article <Xns99DBD884DC42Aboneurhyphe [at] 85.214.62.108>,
Bone Ur <monstersquasher [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm sure you are gorgeous - at least if the dumb broad theory has any
> validity.

Thank you for introducing, for no other purpose than to be mean
spirited, this nasty note into an otherwise harmless light
exchange. Well done.

--
dorayme

Wyngs wrote:
> rf wrote:
>
>>
>> "Wyngs" <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:13il7vhcjg9dvff [at] corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> > Still haven't found diddly about z layers - not even at W3C.
>>
>> You probably mean z-index.
>>
>>Yes, thank you. The person without chromosomes has me all flustered.

Why are you typing into the part you're quoting?

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:06:32 GMT
dorayme scribed:

>> I'm sure you are gorgeous - at least if the dumb broad theory has any
>> validity.
>
> Thank you for introducing, for no other purpose than to be mean
> spirited, this nasty note into an otherwise harmless light
> exchange. Well done.

Well, I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited, I was trying to be jocular. But
you're right. I'm sorry.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

In article <Xns99DBED3036308boneurhyphe [at] 85.214.62.108>,
Bone Ur <monstersquasher [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:06:32 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> >> I'm sure you are gorgeous - at least if the dumb broad theory has any
> >> validity.
> >
> > Thank you for introducing, for no other purpose than to be mean
> > spirited, this nasty note into an otherwise harmless light
> > exchange. Well done.
>
> Well, I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited, I was trying to be jocular. But
> you're right. I'm sorry.

That's ok Bone Ur. I look forward to cordial future exchanges.

--
dorayme

dorayme schreef:
> In article <Xns99DBED3036308boneurhyphe [at] 85.214.62.108>,
> Bone Ur <monstersquasher [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:06:32 GMT
>> dorayme scribed:
>>
>>>> I'm sure you are gorgeous - at least if the dumb broad theory has any
>>>> validity.
>>> Thank you for introducing, for no other purpose than to be mean
>>> spirited, this nasty note into an otherwise harmless light
>>> exchange. Well done.
>>
>> Well, I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited, I was trying to be jocular. But
>> you're right. I'm sorry.
>
> That's ok Bone Ur. I look forward to cordial future exchanges.
>


Phew! Bone, next time you better stop and think a moment before you
start some intra-galaxial skirmish. That was a narrow escape.

--
Rob

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Wyngs wrote:
> > rf wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Wyngs" <glenn61 [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:13il7vhcjg9dvff [at] corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> > Still haven't found diddly about z layers - not even at W3C.
> >>
> >> You probably mean z-index.
> >>
> >>Yes, thank you. The person without chromosomes has me all flustered.
>
> Why are you typing into the part you're quoting?
>
>
If that's a no-no, the reason is I just didn't know any better. I noted
that at the time but decided that as long as it was at the bottom it
didn't matter. However, I can see, after reflection, that it might be
construed as part of the other person's post. We shall avoid it. Thanks
for the question. NEXT!

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:24:08
GMT dorayme scribed:

>> > Thank you for introducing, for no other purpose than to be mean
>> > spirited, this nasty note into an otherwise harmless light
>> > exchange. Well done.
>>
>> Well, I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited, I was trying to be
>> jocular. But you're right. I'm sorry.
>
> That's ok Bone Ur. I look forward to cordial future exchanges.

Ditto. 'Course I might get rapscallionish ever' now 'n agin, but, hey, I'm
a guy.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:36:51
GMT Rob Waaijenberg scribed:

>>>>> I'm sure you are gorgeous - at least if the dumb broad theory has
>>>>> any validity.
>>>> Thank you for introducing, for no other purpose than to be mean
>>>> spirited, this nasty note into an otherwise harmless light
>>>> exchange. Well done.
>>>
>>> Well, I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited, I was trying to be
>>> jocular. But you're right. I'm sorry.
>>
>> That's ok Bone Ur. I look forward to cordial future exchanges.
>>
>
>
> Phew! Bone, next time you better stop and think a moment before you
> start some intra-galaxial skirmish. That was a narrow escape.

Why do you think they call me "Bone Ur"?

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.