Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 561089
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T12:24:47+00:00 2026-05-13T12:24:47+00:00

Internet Explorer (with default settings, which I generally assume will be in effect on

  • 0

Internet Explorer (with default settings, which I generally assume will be in effect on the desktops of the Great Unwashed) seems to dislike the idea of accepting attachment content in an HTTP response if the corresponding request wasn’t made directly from a user action (like a “click” handler, or a native form submit). There are probably more details and nuances, but that’s the basic behavior that’s frustrating me.

It seems to me that this situation is common: the user interface in front of some downloadable content — say, a prepared PDF report — allows for some options and inputs to be used in the creation of the content. Now, as with all forms that allow the user to stipulate how an application does something, it’s possible that the input will be erroneous. Not always, but sometimes.

Thus there’s a dilemma. If the client tries to do something fancy, like run an AJAX transaction to let the server vet the form contents, and then resubmit to get the download, IE won’t like that. It won’t like it because the actual HTTP transaction that carries the attachment back will happen not in the original user-action event handler, but in the AJAX completion callback. Worse, since the IE security bar seems to think that the solution to all one’s problems is to simply reload the outer page from its original URL, its invitation to the user to go ahead and download the suspicious content won’t even work.

The other option is to just have the form fire away. The server checks the parameters, and if there’s anything wrong it responds with the form-container page, peppered appropriately with error messages. If the form contents are OK, it generates the content and ships it back in the HTTP response as an attached file. In this case (I think), IE is happy because the content was apparently directly requested by the user (which is, by the way, a ridiculously flimsy way to tell good content from bad content). This is great, but the problem now is that the client environment (that is, the code on my page) can’t tell that the download worked, so the form is still just sitting there. If my form is in some sort of dialog, then I really need to close that up when the operation is complete — really, that’s one of the motivations for doing it the AJAX way.

It seems to me that the only thing to do is equip the form dialogs with messaging that says something like, “Close this when your download begins.” That really seems lame to me because it’s an example of a “please push this button for me” interface: ideally, my own code should be able to push the buutton when it’s appropriate. A key thing that I don’t know is whether there’s any way for client code to detect that form submission has resulted in an attachment download. I’ve never heard of a way to detect that, but that’d break the impasse for me.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T12:24:47+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 12:24 pm

    I take it you’re submitting the form with a different target window; hence the form staying in place.

    There are several options.

    1. Keep the submit button disabled and do ongoing validation in the background, polling the form for changes to fields and then firing off the validation request for a field as it changes. When the form is in a valid state, enable the button; when it isn’t, disable the button. This isn’t perfect, as there will tend to be a delay, but it may be good enough for whatever you’re doing.
    2. Do basic validation that doesn’t require round-trips to the server in a handler for the form’s submit event, then submit the form and remove it (or possibly just hide it). If the further validation on the server detects a problem, it can return a page that uses JavaScript to tell the original window to re-display the form.
    3. Use a session cookie and a unique form ID (the current time from new Date().getTime() would do); when the form is submitted, disable its submit button but keep it visible until the response comes back. Make the response set a session cookie with that ID indicating success/failure. Have the window containing the form poll for the cookie every second or so and act on the result when it sees it. (I’ve never done this last one; not immediately seeing why it wouldn’t work.)

    I expect there are about a dozen other ways to skin this cat, but those are three that came to mind.

    (Edit) If you’re not submitting to a different target, you might want to go ahead and do that — to a hidden iframe on the same page. That (possibly combined with the above or other answers) might help you get the user experience you’re looking for.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 366k
  • Answers 366k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer First, get the subdomain name from $_SERVER['SERVER_NAME']: list($subdomain) = explode('.',… May 14, 2026 at 4:40 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer $_SERVER['PHP_SELF']; May 14, 2026 at 4:40 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Duplicate logging sounds like... well, duplicate logging. Overhead. If you… May 14, 2026 at 4:40 pm

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.