Navigators and Target Frames - Mission Impossible?

I have a nagivator I use on the web with a URL hotspot.

I had this in the URL property of the the Navigator’s hotspot on an R5 server:

/cmanager.nsf/webPages/Home" target=“_top” alt="IT Commitment Manager

This worked just dandy. I did this because there is no place to specify a target frame property when providing a URL on a navigator.

In R6 Lotus got clever on me and the Domino R6 server now escapes any characters in that URL specification including spaces and " characters.

So now it is sent to the browser as:

/cmanager.nsf/webPages/Home%22%20target=%22_top%22%20alt=%22IT%20Commitment%20Manager

Which of course doesn’t work make for a very effective href. Lovely.

Unfortunately there are multiple target frames in the navigator so I can’t simply provide it at the frame level.

Has anyone overcome this problem and figured out how to address a target from from a Navigator URL in DOMINO R6.

(I know I can get around it by using forms instead of Navigators so please be specific about a Navigator solution if you know one!)

Many thanks to all,

Mark

Subject: Domino 6 escaping urls was re:Navigators and Target Frames - Mission Impossible?

Domino 6 is automatically escaping urls, can this be turned off? It is a serious menace to our projected migration. I read some of the postings in this thread, and want to state beforehand, that there is no use in discussing wether or not the use of non - url specification characters in hotspots, $$Return fields navigators etc. was undocumented cleverness or not. It is simply a fact that these had to be, and were used extensively in web applications, because they were the only option for implementing certain features. Thank you all in advance for any helpful comments.

Subject: Navigators and Target Frames - Mission Impossible?

Hi Mark,

What about replacing your navigator with an outline?

Then you could specify frame in each of the outline entries, plus do all the other fun stuff outlines let you do.

Luke

Subject: Thanks. Know about options. But what about Navigators?

Thanks Luke for your response.

As my initial posting said, I am aware that there are options. Outlines are one but would remove the graphic element completely. A ‘closer’ option is to create a form with the same image as the navigator, only imported as a picture. And then to draw hotspots on that picture. This allows you to create a more extensive set of link types, including Javascript and also URLs with a target definition.

However, I am try to avoid having to recreate all these navigators and am seeking a ‘trick’ like the initial one used in R5, to include a target in the navigator.

Subject: I’d use a page rather than a form for this (WAS: Thanks. Know about options. But what about Navigators?)

Subject: Know about the options. Looking for Nav. Solution.

Again, I must state. I do NOT want to have to recreate everything again.

Aware of options. But not of a NAVIGATOR based solution.

Subject: RE: Know about the options. Looking for Nav. Solution.

Yeah, but as Stan points out, you’re screwed if you want to stick with navigators. In R5 and ND6 they haven’t really moved on beyond the odd bug fix. They suck (IMHO), and I’m glad Lotus decided not to bother developing them further.

Sadly, it looks as though you may well need to re-do them, but at least you’ll have a more flexible design at the end of it all.

Subject: RE: Know about the options. Looking for Nav. Solution.

Whether you WANT to or not may well be immaterial. The fact is that you were using an undocumented bit of cleverness (clever it was, too), and that it simply doesn’t work the same way any more. Unless you can find a string that escapes itself into the link attributes you were previously using (particularly the quotation marks), you may be out of luck.

Subject: RE: Know about the options. Looking for Nav. Solution.

Mark, what about setting the target frame of the form for the documents you’re opening with the navigator?

Subject: RE: Know about the options. Looking for Nav. Solution.

Unfortunately, it’s not consistent across all of his links (several posts back) – that’s where the problem arises. I don’t know how everyone can be satisfied: if the special characters aren’t escaped, then a number of apps get broken (especially non-English apps); but if they are escaped, then clever workarounds get hammered.

How many of us have code in the HTML Body Attrubutes that closes the body tag and opens something else before the Domino ? If it breaks, I’d be p1553d – but there’s no standing promise (documentation) that ever said it was supposed to work in the first place.

Subject: RE: Know about the options. Looking for Nav. Solution.

You know, at the end of the day, I just wish they had a simple target attribute for the URL. Just as they do on Hotspots in most other design elements. I could then employ that and hey presto fixed.

Because this attribute is on other design elements but not within navigators, I see this as an oversight or a ‘let’s just leave those horrible things behind decision’. I do understand that decision. But its a pain. I mean for heavens sake, its not as if a fixed frame navigator is some kind of rare occurrence. It is probably used in that way the MAJORITY of times.

Anyway gentlemen, thanks for your input. I think we’ll just have to rework the design. Which I consider rather sad, given the endless statements of “most stable release ever”, “easy migration”, etc.

Our reality is that many of our applications will require some (abeit minor) tweaking, to keep it working in R6.

And given the lack of a migration specific forum, catching the pitfalls in advance is challenge!

Best,

Mark