Problems with ASP.Net object and Javascript

[tshad]

I have a function:

function SalaryDisplay(m e)
{
var salaryMinLabel = document.getEle mentById("Salar yMin");
salaryMinLabel. value = 200;
alert("after setting salaryMinLabel = " + salaryMinLabel. value);
}

I also have an asp.net object:

<asp:label id="SalaryMin" runat="server" />

Which renders into:

<span id="SalaryMin"> </span>

The function seems to find the span fine. The alert box shows that it is
set to 200. But the web page never shows it.

Is there a problem setting the span element?

Thanks,

Tom

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <Po*********@we b.de> writes:

David Dorward schrieb:

Then what is the difference? I was under the impression that
ECMAScript was just the standard that was created from JavaScript
ECMAScript was created based on both Netscape JavaScript and Microsoft
JScript (which is probably why some of the features available in only
one of these is not in ECMAScript).

[ECMAScript] and that browsers implemented the standard now.

They implement Netscape JavaScript or Microsoft JScript which extend
standardized ECMAScript.

That's a yes. That these two browsers have named their extensions of
ECMAScript is mostly for historical reasons (they were named before
ECMAScript existed), but other browsers don't necessarily do so.

E.g., Opera implements ECMAScript v3. It doesn't implement Netscape
JavaScript nor Microsoft JScript. It has some extensions that are
compatible with parts of JavaScript and JScript, but it is not a full
implementation of either. As such, it's their own personal extension
of ECMAScript (and "an extended subset" of JavaScript and JScript).

Their own statement is:
<URL:http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/#ecmascript>.
Incidentally, the Windows version has a file called "es262-32.dll" :)

Did I have a point? :)
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <Po*********@we b.de> writes:

David Dorward schrieb:

Then what is the difference? I was under the impression that
ECMAScript was just the standard that was created from JavaScript
ECMAScript was created based on both Netscape JavaScript and Microsoft
JScript (which is probably why some of the features available in only
one of these is not in ECMAScript).
Having reviewed ECMA-262 (First Edition), I have to admit that my sources
were apparently incorrect. You're right, it states on page 5:

| This ECMA Standard is based on several originating technologies, the most
| well known being JavaScript? (Netscape Communications) and JScript?
| (Microsoft Corporation). The development of this Standard has started in
| November 1996.
[ECMAScript] and that browsers implemented the standard now.
They implement Netscape JavaScript or Microsoft JScript which extend
standardized ECMAScript.

That's a yes.

If I meant "yes", I would have said so.
That these two browsers have named their extensions of ECMAScript is
mostly for historical reasons (they were named before ECMAScript existed),
Those extensions are mostly not compliant with ECMAScript.
but other browsers don't necessarily do so.
E.g., Opera implements ECMAScript v3.
No. It implements many features of ECMAScript editions (_not_ versions,
BTW).
It doesn't implement Netscape JavaScript nor Microsoft JScript. It has
some extensions that are compatible with parts of JavaScript and JScript,
Which is why it does not implement ECMAScript 3 (per specification).
but it is not a full implementation of either.
Yes, indeed.
As such, it's their own personal extension of ECMAScript (and "an extended
subset" of JavaScript and JScript).
There is only one ECMAScript (with currently 4 possible editions). Any
extension/omission of it that is not allowed by the specification does
not result in an (compliant) ECMAScript implementation, strictly speaking.
And certainly the languages are not the same and/or cannot be used as
synonyms which was the question here.
Their own statement is:
<URL:http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/#ecmascript>.
Incidentally, the Windows version has a file called "es262-32.dll" :)

Did I have a point? :)

You missed it somehow.
PointedEars

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@we b.de> writes:

That these two browsers have named their extensions of ECMAScript is
mostly for historical reasons (they were named before ECMAScript existed),
Those extensions are mostly not compliant with ECMAScript.

Depending on how one views extensions to a standard vs. compliance
with it. If all requirements of the standard are complied with, the
existence of further features would not make the extended language
uncompliant ... unless "no further features" *is* a requirement
of the standard. I don't believe it is for ECMAScript, quite the
contrary, in fact.

There is a difference between extending the syntax of the language
(which only IE does, with its conditional compilation features) and
extending the runtime environment that, syntactically correct,
programs are run in. The runtime environment is specified by the
standard, but not exclusively. The standard allows for extensions.
It even expects them.

It doesn't implement Netscape JavaScript nor Microsoft JScript. It has
some extensions that are compatible with parts of JavaScript and JScript,

Which is why it does not implement ECMAScript 3 (per specification).

ECMA262, 3rd edition (thanks), states (section 4):
---
ECMAScript as defined here is not intended to be computationally
self-sufficient; indeed, there are no provisions in this
specification for input of external data or output of computed
results. Instead, it is expected that the computational environment
of an ECMAScript program will provide not only the objects and other
facilities described in this specification but also certain
environment-specific host objects, whose description and behaviour
are beyond the scope of this specification except to indicate that
they may provide certain properties that can be accessed and certain
functions that can be called from an ECMAScript program.
---

A later note, from section 15, is:
---
NOTE Implementations that add additional capabilities to the set of
built-in functions are encouraged to do so by adding new functions
rather than adding new parameters to existing functions.
---

The ECMAScript standard writers *expect* implementations to have an
environment that extends that specified by the standard, while still
being compatible.
There is only one ECMAScript (with currently 4 possible editions).
Yes. It is a specification (or four).

There are several implementations of languages that comply with this
specification. Each is used in an environment where the standard-
specified runtime environment is extended with host objects and
non-standard properties.
Any extension/omission of it that is not allowed by the
specification does not result in an (compliant) ECMAScript
implementation, strictly speaking.
I disagree with this. Compliance is possible while also including
extensions, because the standard is not written to exclude extensions.
And certainly the languages are not the same and/or cannot be used
as synonyms which was the question here.

That is correct. There is no language called "Javascript " (lower case
"s").

Should anyone dare to use the word anyway, we'll just have to find a
meaning for it. I suggest "a generalization over ECMA-262-compliant
scripting languages". :)

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Richard Cornford]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

<snip>

That these two browsers have named their extensions
of ECMAScript is mostly for historical reasons (they
were named before ECMAScript existed),

Those extensions are mostly not compliant with ECMAScript.

but other browsers don't necessarily do so.
E.g., Opera implements ECMAScript v3.

No. It implements many features of ECMAScript editions
(_not_ versions, BTW).

It doesn't implement Netscape JavaScript nor Microsoft
JScript. It has some extensions that are compatible with
parts of JavaScript and JScript,

Which is why it does not implement ECMAScript 3 (per
specification).

but it is not a full implementation of either.

Yes, indeed.

As such, it's their own personal extension of ECMAScript
(and "an extended subset" of JavaScript and JScript).

There is only one ECMAScript (with currently 4 possible
editions). Any extension/omission of it that is not allowed
by the specification does not result in an (compliant)
ECMAScript implementation, strictly speaking. And certainly
the languages are not the same and/or cannot be used as
synonyms which was the question here.

<snip>

ECMA 262 3rd edition commences with a section on conformance. Which
says:-

<quote cite=""ECMA 262 3rd edition Section 2>
2 Conformance

A conforming implementation of ECMAScript must provide and support all
the types, values, objects, properties, functions, and program syntax
and semantics described in this specification.

....

A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide
additional types, values, objects, properties, and functions beyond
those described in this specification. In particular, a conforming
implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide properties not
described in this specification, and values for those properties, for
objects that are described in this specification.

A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to support
program and regular expression syntax not described in this
specification. In particular, a conforming implementation of ECMAScript
is permitted to support program syntax that makes use of the "future
reserved words" listed in section 7.5.3 of this specification.
</quote>

Making it very clear that ECMA 262 provides for extension that would
include all of the differences between JavaScript, JScript and Opera's
implementation and an implementation that included nothing but what is
required by the standard. Thus they are all conforming ECMAScript
implementations .

Richard.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@we b.de> writes:

That these two browsers have named their extensions of ECMAScript is
mostly for historical reasons (they were named before ECMAScript
existed), Those extensions are mostly not compliant with ECMAScript.

Depending on how one views extensions to a standard vs. compliance
with it.

There is nothing that allows for private meaning here. A specification
is a specification. Non-compliant behavior is just that.
If all requirements of the standard are complied with, the
existence of further features would not make the extended language
uncompliant ... unless "no further features" *is* a requirement
of the standard. I don't believe it is for ECMAScript, quite the
contrary, in fact.

There is a difference between extending the syntax of the language
(which only IE does, with its conditional compilation features) and
extending the runtime environment that, syntactically correct,
programs are run in. The runtime environment is specified by the
standard, but not exclusively. The standard allows for extensions.
It even expects them.
It allows for certain specified extensions, not extensions in general.
Conditional comments are one of the features that is not compliant to
ECMAScript. An ECMAScript compliant compiler would yield a syntax
error then.

It doesn't implement Netscape JavaScript nor Microsoft JScript. It has
some extensions that are compatible with parts of JavaScript and
JScript,

Which is why it does not implement ECMAScript 3 (per specification).

ECMA262, 3rd edition (thanks), states (section 4): [...]

Don't play human gateway this way. You can assume I have not only
downloaded but also read and understood all of it.
[...] it is expected that the computational environment
of an ECMAScript program will provide not only the objects and other
facilities described in this specification but also certain
environment-specific host objects, [...]
That does not say *any* extension to the *language* is allowed without
making it non-compliant. Host objects are a completely different issue.
A later note, from section 15, is:
---
NOTE Implementations that add additional capabilities to the set of
built-in functions are encouraged to do so by adding new functions
rather than adding new parameters to existing functions.
Your point is?
The ECMAScript standard writers *expect* implementations to have an
environment that extends that specified by the standard, while still
being compatible.

They expect extensions described by the specification and they expect
the existence of host objects. They do not expect that an implementation
calling itself ECMAScript compliant is in fact non-compliant.

Any extension/omission of it that is not allowed by the
specification does not result in an (compliant) ECMAScript
implementation, strictly speaking.

I disagree with this. Compliance is possible while also including
extensions, because the standard is not written to exclude extensions.

You disagree with the specification itself. What is not explicitely
"allowed" in a *specification* is "forbidden" in terms of compliance
with it.
PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Cornford wrote:

[...]
<quote cite=""ECMA 262 3rd edition Section 2>
2 Conformance
[...]
</quote>

Making it very clear that ECMA 262 provides for extension that would
include all of the differences between JavaScript, JScript and Opera's
implementation and an implementation that included nothing but what is
required by the standard. Thus they are all conforming ECMAScript
implementations .

Point taken. Thank you.
PointedEars
--
Who stops to learn, ceases to exist.
-- Japan proverb

[Jim Ley]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:09:07 +0100, "Richard Cornford"
<Ri*****@litote s.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Thus they are all conforming ECMAScript
implementation s.

Well there are bugs...

Jim.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Jim Ley wrote:

[...] Richard Cornford [...] wrote:

Thus they are all conforming ECMAScript implementations .

Well there are bugs...

Please be more specific.
PointedEars

[Jim Ley]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:30:44 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@we b.de> wrote:

Jim Ley wrote:

[...] Richard Cornford [...] wrote:

Thus they are all conforming ECMAScript implementations .

Well there are bugs...

Please be more specific.

There exist bugs in the JavaScript and JScript implementations that
make them non-compliant.

Jim.

[Ivan Marsh]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:59:36 +0000, Jim Ley wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:30:44 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@we b.de> wrote:

Jim Ley wrote:

[...] Richard Cornford [...] wrote:
Thus they are all conforming ECMAScript implementations .

Well there are bugs...

Please be more specific.

There exist bugs in the JavaScript and JScript implementations that
make them non-compliant.

Being non-compliant isn't a bug.

--
Life is short, but wide. -KV