Mellow Crow said the following on 11/4/2005 6:27 AM:[color=blue]
> Richard, both of your points are helpful, thanks.
>
> Richard Cornford wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Mellow Crow wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Just discovered this technique. Is this old hat?[/color]
>>
>>It is not old hat as such because the number of browsers that fully
>>support the technique only recently increased to the point where it
>>could be considered viable in an Internet context. It has been known,
>>and experimented with, for some considerable time.[/color]
>
>
> Yes. It's a W3C/standards/"modern" technique so it's new in that sense.
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Would there be any
>>>disadvantage to doing this?[/color]
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Yes, you will be excluding some browsers from being able to use the
>>script without necessarily having a good reason for doing so.[/color]
>
>
> Yes. That's true. Raises the fundamental issue of whether you should design
> for graceful degradation or simply ignore older browsers. I'm sure this has
> been thrashed out elsewhere.
>
> May have found a second potential disadvantage.
> When testing your page from served local web server (not file system) AND
> you use the technique of this thread AND
> you are referencing a script file from outside the root of your domain,
> using the file system (eg file:///C:/Data/...)
> THEN
> You get errors :([/color]
Security errors is what they should be. It is because you are on the
server localhost (or similar) and you are pulling data from the HD. No
different than the page being on
www.sampleDomain.com and trying to get
data from your HD. The solution? Put your script files on the "server"
and address them that way.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ -
http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices -
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/