repost：滚动表 [英] repost:scrolling tables
问题描述
尝试使用此脚本滚动此链接中的表格：
http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/examp...bleScroll.html
表格中的左上角隐藏不显示。
我看到：
- 代码是创建DIV'和
- 覆盖是隐藏的
但仍然无法看到修改因此左上角可以显示为冻结的标签专栏。
任何人都可以建议如何将左上角的块显示为左侧冻结列的一部分???
Jon Paal写道：尝试使用此脚本滚动在此链接中找到的表：
如果你还没有找到大多数人的杀戮档案，你很快就会出现。
那么你的帖子根本不会被有足够知识的人看到
实际回答你的问题。
你一直忘了：
1）您没有权限使用您发布的网址中的代码。这是
版权所有。所有代码都是。你不能复制它并使用它。
2）如果代码的作者不愿意帮助你，那么没有其他人可能会支持
。
-
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http：// www.AjaxToolbox.com
Matt Kruse写道：
Jon Paal写道：尝试使用此脚本滚动此链接中的表格：
如果你还没有在这里的大多数人的杀戮文件，你很快就会。
然后你的帖子赢了'有足够知识的人可以看到实际回答你的问题。
你一直忘记：
1）你没有权限使用代码来自您发布的网址。这是受版权保护的。所有代码都是。你无法复制并使用它。
IBTD。
我不认为这是理查德的意图他的这些做法没有传播，而是没有人使用示例文本而没有
他的许可（但是，由他来澄清这一点）。什么是
示例，如果它不被允许这样做的话呢？
我发布我在我的网站上使用的代码并在这里发布
公共域名，除非指定不同（我希望其他人都这样做，b
，CMIIW）。我憎恨和鄙视的是那些使用（我的）
代码（即使是修改过的形式）但没有提到原作者的人，制作
看起来好像整个事情是他们的想法，人们试图在没有原作者的明确许可的情况下用它来赚钱（而且我希望其他人在这里分享这种态度， CMIIW）。
此外，版权是AFAIK只是美国立法的一个概念;
然而，这是一个国际分布的新闻组，而且是全球性的/>
可用的网站可能不仅受到一个
国家的立法的约束。和AIUI，版权是用
印刷材料引入的;关于
电子媒体的立法仍有一个灰色地带。所以，由于（美国美国人）版权所有，因此不能说是不能将b b b复制并使用它。例如，欧盟
法律，包括德意志联邦共和国的立法（I $ / b $ b碰巧住在那里），只知道作者的权利，不需要
注册或作者的任何免责声明变为活跃状态。 （IANAL）
这一切归结为概念和算法是否可以和
应该受版权保护，甚至是专利的问题。我拒绝;
的缺点太多了。 " Copyleft的"肯定是更好的选择。
毕竟，我们在这里_share_我们的想法，不是吗？
2）如果代码的作者不愿意为了帮助你，那么没有其他人可能也会这样。
True。
PointedEars
托马斯''PointedEars''Lahn< Po ********* @ web.de>写道：
Matt Kruse写道：
1）你没有权限使用来自您发布的网址的代码。这是受版权保护的。所有代码都是。你无法复制并使用它。
IBTD。
我猜有一个除非另有说明作者"缺少
声明通常是正确的。在这种情况下，我不知道作者是否有一个
的陈述。
我认为这不是理查德的意图不要传播，而是没有人在没有得到他的许可的情况下使用该例子的文本（但是，由他来澄清这一点）。如果不允许这样做，那么什么是好的例子呢？
灵感，也许。
使用someoen
else写的脚本和使用它的想法，因为想法不能受版权保护
（虽然按照Dan Brown试用会很有趣）。
我，我发布代码我在我的网站上使用并在这里发布
公共域名，除非指定不同（我希望其他人都这样做，CMIIW）。
虽然我可以使用该语句作为我允许使用
代码的参数，使用其他人的代码而没有来自<他们让你对版权侵权诉讼持开放态度。
我憎恨和鄙视的是那些使用（我的）代码（甚至是修改后的代码）的人提到原作者，制作似乎整个事情都是他们的想法，人们试图在没有原作者的明确许可的情况下用它赚钱（而且我希望在座的其他人分享这种态度，CMIIW）。
但是，发布到公共领域具有特定含义，即您放弃对工作的权利，这是您通过版权授予的权利
law。
此外，版权仅是AFAIK美国立法的概念;然而，这是一个国际分布的新闻组，以及一个全球可用的网站可能不仅仅受一个国家的立法约束。
版权是大多数
立法中存在的概念的英文单词。大多数国家已经批准的国际伯尔尼公约要求当地版权法赋予某些权利
和priveleges。这就是为什么不同国家的版权法基本上是兼容的。
和AIUI，版权是用印刷材料引入的;关于电子媒体的立法仍然存在灰色地带。
从法律上讲，我不认为灰色区域那么大。只是它只是它
并不总是对技术有用的人有很多意义
理解:)
所以它因为（美国美国）版权所有人不能复制并使用它而接近于不正确。
否，但未经作者许可，不能在国家使用
签署伯尔尼公约。
例如，欧盟法律，包括联邦德国共和国（我碰巧住在那里）的立法，只知道作者的权利，不需要注册或任何作者的免责声明变得活跃。 （IANAL）
美国版权也不要求（自1989年以来，他们的b $ b b采用了伯尔尼公约）。仅仅创建和发布
的作品将给予作者版权法的保护。
这一切归结为概念和算法是否可以和
应该受版权保护，甚至获得专利。我拒绝;对于许多人而言，其缺点太多了。
同意两者。版权涵盖具体作品，而非创意。专利
仅涵盖物理上可实现的想法。对于受版权保护的软件，版权保护的当前持续时间也太长了
在到期时有用，与
$ b中规定的目标相反$ b美国宪法首先引入版权。
/ L
-
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - < a href =mailto：lr*@hotpop.com> lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML死亡颜色：< URL：http：//www.infimum.dk/ HTML / rasterTriangleDOM.html>
''没有判断的信仰只会降低精神神圣。''
trying to use this script for scrolling tables found at this link:
http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/examp...bleScroll.html
The top left corner in the table grid is hidden from being displayed.
I see:
-- the code is creating DIV''s and
-- overrides are hidden
but still can''t see anyway to modify so top left corner can be a displayed label to the frozen column.
can anyone advise how to show the top left corner block as part of the left frozen column ???
Jon Paal wrote:trying to use this script for scrolling tables found at this link:
If you aren''t in the kill files of most people here yet, you soon will be.
Then your posts won''t be seen at all by the people with enough knowledge to
actually answer your questions.
You keep forgetting:
1) You don''t have permission to use the code from the url you posted. It''s
copyrighted. All code is. You cannot copy it and use it.
2) If the author of the code isn''t willing to help you, then no one else
probably will either.
--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
Matt Kruse wrote:
Jon Paal wrote:trying to use this script for scrolling tables found at this link:
If you aren''t in the kill files of most people here yet, you soon will be.
Then your posts won''t be seen at all by the people with enough knowledge
to actually answer your questions.
You keep forgetting:
1) You don''t have permission to use the code from the url you posted. It''s
copyrighted. All code is. You cannot copy it and use it.
IBTD.
I do not think it was Richard''s intention that these approaches of his do
not spread, but instead that nobody used the text of the example without
his permission (however, it is up to him to clarify this). What is an
example good for if it is not allowed to serve as such?
I, for one, publish the code I use on my Web site and post here for the
public domain, unless specified different (and I expect everybody else to
do so, CMIIW). What I resent and despise only, are people who use (my)
code (even in modified form) without mentioning the original author, making
it seem as if the whole thing was their idea, and people trying to make
money with it without the original author''s explicit permission (and I
expect everybody else here to share that attitude, CMIIW).
Furthermore, Copyright is AFAIK only a concept of U.S. American legislation;
however, this is an internationally distributed newsgroup, and a globally
available Web site is probably not only subject to the legislation of one
country, too. And AIUI, Copyright is something that was introduced with
printed material; there is still a gray area here in legislation regarding
electronic media. So it is bordering to incorrect to say that one cannot
copy it and use it because of (U.S. American) Copyright. For example, EU
law, including the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany (I
happen to live there), knows only author''s rights which do not require
registration or any disclaimer of the author to become active. (IANAL)
It all boils down to the question whether concepts and algorithms can and
should be copyrighted, or even patented. I say no; the drawbacks of that
for the many are too many. "Copyleft" certainly is the better alternative.
After all, we are here to _share_ our ideas, are we not?
2) If the author of the code isn''t willing to help you, then no one else
probably will either.
True.
PointedEars
Thomas ''PointedEars'' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes:
Matt Kruse wrote:1) You don''t have permission to use the code from the url you posted. It''s
copyrighted. All code is. You cannot copy it and use it.
IBTD.
I guess there was an "unless otherwise stated by the author" missing
for the statement to be generally true. I don''t know if there is a
statment by the author in this case.
I do not think it was Richard''s intention that these approaches of his do
not spread, but instead that nobody used the text of the example without
his permission (however, it is up to him to clarify this). What is an
example good for if it is not allowed to serve as such?
Inspiration, perhaps.
There is a big difference between using a script written by someoen
else and using an idea from it, since ideas cannot be copyrighted
(although it will be interesting to follow the Dan Brown trial).
I, for one, publish the code I use on my Web site and post here for the
public domain, unless specified different (and I expect everybody else to
do so, CMIIW).
While I can use that statement as argument for my being allowed to use
your code, using other people''s code without a similar statement from
them leaves you open to copyright infringement lawsuits.
What I resent and despise only, are people who use (my)
code (even in modified form) without mentioning the original author, making
it seem as if the whole thing was their idea, and people trying to make
money with it without the original author''s explicit permission (and I
expect everybody else here to share that attitude, CMIIW).
But releasing into the public domain has a specific meaning, that you
relinquish your rights to the work, as granted to you by copyright
law.
Furthermore, Copyright is AFAIK only a concept of U.S. American legislation;
however, this is an internationally distributed newsgroup, and a globally
available Web site is probably not only subject to the legislation of one
country, too.
Copyright is the English word for a concept that exists in most
legislations. The international Berne Convention, that most countries
have ratified, requires local copyright law to give certain rights
and priveleges. That is why different countries'' copyright laws are
mostly compatible.
And AIUI, Copyright is something that was introduced with
printed material; there is still a gray area here in legislation regarding
electronic media.
Legally, I don''t think the gray area is that big. It''s just that it
doesn''t always make a lot of sense to people with technical
understanding :)
So it is bordering to incorrect to say that one cannot
copy it and use it because of (U.S. American) Copyright.
No, but you cannot use it without author permission in a country
that signed the Berne Convention.
For example, EU law, including the legislation of the Federal
Republic of Germany (I happen to live there), knows only author''s
rights which do not require registration or any disclaimer of the
author to become active. (IANAL)
US copyright doesn''t require that either (since 1989, when they
adopted the Berne Convention). Merely creating and publishing a
work will grant the author the protections of copyright law.
It all boils down to the question whether concepts and algorithms can and
should be copyrighted, or even patented. I say no; the drawbacks of that
for the many are too many.
Agree on both. Copyright covers concrete works, not ideas. Patents
covers only physically implementable ideas. The current duration of
copyright protection is also far too long for copyrighted software
to be useful when it expires, contrary to the goals set forth in
the US constitution for introducing copyright in the first place.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
''Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.''
这篇关于repost：滚动表的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
