[Zope] Re: Re: Re: pulling from another website

Michael Havard nhavar@hotmail.com
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:57:13 +0000

ECMAScript 262 - Mozilla, IE5/6, and Opera tend to stick fairly close to 
this, enough so as to be considered ECMAScript compliant. So that if you pay 
attention to the standard that you can write code pretty much oblivious to 
what browser it's going to be implemented on. If a browser doesn't support a 
particular feature like array.push, it's more than likely that someone 
already has a free prebuilt crossbrowser script that fills the void with no 

Additionally if you're using javascript for the sparkly factor then your 
using it wrong, go use flash or java applets. WE use it in form validation, 
table sorting, row hit highlighting and client side pagination and creating 
lightweight user interface components like tabpanels. It works easily with 
about 5 major browsers and there's no "IF IE6" or "IF NS4" anywhere in code.

My point is that NOTHING we have today works IDENTICALLY in every browser. 
IE will render font's one size and moz another and lynx another. If your 
criteria for using a standard is how identically it works in each browser 
then you won't be using any standard. Additionally you have to design pages 
that should javascript/css/xml/xsl/whatever not be available that you have a 
plan B.

>From: martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net>
>To: zope@zope.org
>Subject: [Zope] Re: Re: Re: pulling from another website
>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:34:41 +0100
>also sprach Michael Havard <nhavar@hotmail.com> [2003.03.17.2205 +0100]:
> > Sorry but what a complete crock of elitist crap. Javascript, just
> > like any other client side code, has it's uses (and abuses).
>give me a standard on javascript that works on most common browsers
>and you win. in the mean time, i might think about javascript for
>little sparkles and addons that appear to be needed these days,
>since information has been replaced by eyecandy throughout the web.
>those were the days...
> > Yes there are alot of script kiddies and even professional
> > designers out there that use the propritary extensions (both MS's
> > and Netscapes) and cause sites to be inaccessible to certain
> > users. I think instead of bashing the language we should advocate
> > better use. Let's keep blanket statements like "XXXXX is evil" out
> > of the groups and focus on helping developer create better more
> > accessible content using ALL of the tools at their disposal.
>okay, i'll shut up and listen.
>martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
>   \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
>keyserver problems? http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/keyserver.html
>get my key here: http://madduck.net/me/gpg/publickey
>a c programmer asked whether computers have buddha's nature.
>as the answer, the master did "rm -rf" on the programmer's home
>directory. and then the c programmer became enlightened...
><< attach3 >>

Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.