| From: | Matt Sealey |
| Date: | 13 Mar 2001 at 14:46:07 |
| Subject: | Re: Javascript Does'nt work on my amiga ??? |
Hello Andy
On 13-Mar-01, you wrote:
>> specification. Care to name one of these bugs? I found a juicy one in NS4
>> the other day, where a misplaced comment in JS would break the script
>
> Can't name one just like that, just accept that both IE and NS are full of
> lots of little bugs that pop up to annoy me, I work round them, and then
> forget about them.
You should write them down and report them, lest you have to keep
working around them forever. It's reasonable to expect that they would
if you complained enough.
>> <SCRIPT><!--// cam counter
>>
>> ble bah boo;
>>
>> //--></SCRIPT>
>>
>>
>> NS was actually adding garbage characters (C<!--) and breaking
>> script functions just because I put the HTML comment too close to the
>> <SCRIPT> tag and the // comment too close to the HTML comment.
>
> Well, if you do go and write ugly looking code... ;)
Ugly?
>> Now if that isn't one of those bugs that makes you so annoyed about
>> a browser that you refuse to write for it..
>
> No, you write decent looking code instead. If you try and cram
> 2 different flavours of comments on one line, plus the <script> tag,
> you get everything you deserver ;)
Decent code and pretty code are mutually exclusive in my opinion. And
it just goes to prove that Netscape's parser is shit.
>>>> Owt with support for the decent side of the DOM.
>>
>> IE4/5 supports it. There, with NS6 and IE4 support, you've trapped 90%
>> of the browser market already (btw, I checked, Opera does it as well,
>> that's 92% :)
>
> So NS4 has, at most, 8% of the browser market? It's still a fair bit more
> than that, depending who you believe.
I beleive.. umm. those people who give out the browser market figures (no,
not Browserwatch :)
>> So you'd rather let this "bug" lie, and live with it, than report it to
>> people who might just say "jesus, this is annoying. We'll fix that for IE6".
>>
>> What the HELL are you complaining about?
>
> IE being crap? And if it did get fixed, I wouldn't have the fun of confused
> designers trying to work out what s: has got to do with anything when
> they can't view a page ;)
I do that for a living (working out why the browser breaks) and to be honest
I can't be arsed to work out why NETSCAPE doesn't like the code - a browser
that's been around for close to 10 years in some shape or form - that both
IE and our relatively young browser uses and handles fine.
When you're working to Netscape docs, you need to make sure you're doing
what Netscape does. When Netscape fails to meet it's own docs, you throw a
fit :P
>>> that annoying, really, just sometimes pisses me off. And it was just an
>>> example of the many things that are crap about IE5.x
>>
>> The fact that it doesn't re-format your badly inputted URI's to something
>> usable before attempting to access the site? I don't know, maybe if you
>> preach about standards compliance you might actually want to follow
>> those standards yourself. Missing off the http:// protocol bit is a dumb
>> idea, expecting IE to fill in the blanks is slack. And when it goes wrong,
>> you say IE is crap. Hmm.. can you say h y p o c r i t e ? :)
>
> www.whateveritis.com:8080 is a perfectly valid URI. It's not a valid URL
> though. You'd reasonably expect a web browser to assume HTTP as the
> protocol if you don't specify it, the same way you'd expect it to use port
> 80 if you don't specify it. Every other browser does.
That's no reason to expect it at all. You didn't form the request properly
and are expecting the browser to fill in your blanks.. you think if you
pasted that URL into an HTTP header, it'd actually get accepted? :)
>> Or, IE has in fact got the most support for XML on any platform, in fact.
>> Dodgy support? Hahaha, you've gotta be kidding. The IE5.5 release had
>> virtually no real-world HTML fixes, it was all XML subsystem additions.
>
> I was thinking more of IE5 there, as it's still in wide use. IE5 had such
> useless XML support that I never got around to checking it out in IE5.5 yet.
Microsoft's XML engine is tops. They're kinda hoping it stays that way as
well, it's their sole future product "glue" - note how many apps came out
last year from MS and other companies that use XML as data transport.
> We could go on for weeks about that one, but let's not. Then again, if it
> wasn't for OpenSource, we wouldn't be getting these emails anyway. And
> there'd be about 6 websites in the world so we wouldn't need this argument.
YAM wasn't OpenSource when I started using it.
>> In principle you shouldn't be typing it in anyway, Standards Boy.
>
> Ideally, my webbrowser should know where I want to go before I do,
> but that's not going to happen so I'd better be able to type it in.
And hence, stop whinging when you type it wrong and the browser
complains.
Thanks
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l3joGB/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/d8AVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/