Zach

> http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/loadingExternalData.html
> Is 100% wrong.

no it is not. you seem to have misunderstood what a 'stream' is. a stream
is where you set up a persistent TCP connection and data is transmitted
down the connection, with either side listening continuously for incoming
data. The 'event' that is detected is the receipt of data, triggered only
by the sending end sending the data. nothing more.

this does _not_ include a script requesting extra data by embedding new
<script> tags using DOM scripting.

it does _not_ include embedding an iframe and loading a page in it.

it does _not_ include using XMLDOM or XMLHttpRequest

it does _not_ include showing/hiding or embedding any new iframes

> http://xxxxxxxxxxx.xx/xxxxx/?lg=304

this page uses some very cool scripts granted, but it still is not
streaming anything at all. it embeds multiple iframes (52 nested frames by
my count), each of which contains new data. whenever you click a link, it
shows another iframe. I agree that it is not loading the data into a script
variable, there is no need, it just displays it.

All the iframes are embedded right from the start, and do not communicate
after the page has completed loading.

However, you are loading external data using a slightly different technique
to the one I described, but still using the same idea. You run a timer, and
with every cycle, the timer embeds a new script tag into the head of the
page using W3C DOM. The browser then loads the script using the given SRC,
which then passes the data to the relevant function. This is just like the
way I use the iframe, except that you use W3C DOM to load into the page
head, and I use an iframe to load the script page. The effect is the same,
and either way, it is still not streaming.

I will add a note into my article to say that it can also be done the way
you are doing it.

Mine will also work in 4th generation browsers, but in the current web,
that is not very important any more. However, unlike yours (which works in
Internet Explorer 5+ on Windows, Mozilla/Netscape 6+ and Opera 7.5+), mine
also works in Internet Explorer 5+ on Mac, Safari/Konqueror/OmniWeb 4.5+,
iCab, Opera 7.23- and ICEbrowser as well. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
You are just too important to care about them, and you are still stuck back
in the days of the 1997 browser wars.

> that page is IE only it will never work in Opera as Opera supports
> nothing important

oh grow up! Opera supports far more CSS than IE, and a vast amount of the
DOM. In fact, apart from DOM2 CSS stylesheet editing (which you are not
using anyway), Opera supports virtually all DOM scripting that
Mozilla/Firefox supports, and also supports a huge amount of the Microsoft
JScript extensions.

If you still believe that Opera cannot do anything important, then it is
time you pulled your head out of your own backside. I'm not sure if you are
just blind or something, but in case you didn't notice, on that page I said
that what I had done will work in Opera as well. If your page cannot, it is
just because you are a lazy and arrogant page author. 

> why waste your time for hours on end to worry about the one freak

If you feel you must insult people for using the program that suits them
best, then please stop reading my pages, they are intended for people who
are not so narrow minded as you, people who realise that the web is
supposed to be an open community, where we allow people to make their own
choices, not dictate that if they do not use what you want then they are
"freaks". I have no intention to waste any more of my time with you, or
your mistaken idea of what 'streaming' is.

Zach,

> Every time I see your page, that statement drives me nuts - come on,
> quit telling people something that is false, and has been false for
> years.

Changed to "Even many DOM...."

The thing is that I still agree with my own statement. It is not reliable
enough to use.

I know you are using it, and I know it works in the browser that you use.
But you are still being a very arrogant author, dictating to your user what
they MUST use, without caring whether it suits their needs. And your
continued disregard for other browsers does not inspire me to continue with
this conversation.

So unless you are going to tell me that you will make your page work cross
browser (Opera, Safari, Konqueror, Mozilla, Internet Explorer, and maybe ICE
and iCab as well, and lets not forget a fallback for other browsers
including the ones used by disabled people), please do not email me again.


Tarquin

Zach,

> nothing else I
> ever does works in Mozilla

Then maybe you need to do some proper training before making web pages. All
you are doing at the moment is littering the web with incompatible pages,
and you do not do the future of the web, or your clients any good at all.

If you cannot do this training, then maybe you are in the wrong profession.

> keep me busy for five years

If you do not make compatible pages, then 5 years is unlikely, as browsers
will evolve towards the standards compliant direction. That means Opera,
Safari, Mozilla, Konqueror.

> In regards to fallback for disabled - very little scripting works
> well for disabled people - so if we only built pages that worked
> for disabled, we would end up with a newspaper on the web, and thats
> it.

That is absolute, utter bullshit, and excuse my language, since I very
rarely swear in emails, but that is such total bullshit!

A properly written page uses HTML for the structure, and regular pages for
the convaying of information, and just uses scripts to enhance the
behaviour. There is no reason _at all_ to insult or shut out users with
accessibility needs. Plenty of web authors manage to combine scripts and 
pages, producing stunning effects without reducing accessibility. If you do
not know how to do this, then again, you need to learn it. You may be "only
one person" but this is something that every professional and
semi-professional web author should learn.

> It is ok to develope applications that not the entire population can
> use.

Correct, but insulting users with accessibility needs is something I do not
accept. At all. And demanding that people should use a program that does not
serve their needs is equally insulting. Financial reasons aside (I don't
particularly care about your business reasons, since I believe that a
company that decides to use the web has a duty to do it properly), if your
users realised the disrespectful attitude that you have towards their needs,
you would not have any users. And you do not deserve them either.