By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
431,899 Members | 1,066 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 431,899 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Getting "object expected" error in Windows XP only

P: n/a
I wrote the following code as part of a page where users can reorder a
list of items by highlighting an item in a list box and clicking an
"up" or "down" button to move the items around. The code below is for
the up and down buttons along with a reset button (which reloads the
list as it was originally) and a change button which applies the
changes. In Explorer and Safari for Mac, this code works flawlessly.
When I tested on Explorer in Windows XP, the lines for the up, down
and change buttons generated an "object expected" error. The code for
the reset button worked fine.
<input type="button" value="up"
onClick="javascript:moveSelection('up');" />
<input type="button" value="down"
onClick="javascript:moveSelection('down');" />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<input type="button" onClick="javascript:window.location.reload();"
value="reset" />
<input type="button" onClick="javascript:sendit();" value="change"
/>
Barring a stupid oversight on my part (entirely within the realm of
possibility) I'm wondering if anyone knows if there is an specific bug
in Explorer XP that is causing this? Since the lines in question which
generate the error are calling functions, I think it's reasonable to
assume that's the issue. If so, is there a workaround or some
alternate method that will avoid this problem?

Thanks.

--Rick
Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
5 Replies


P: n/a
in******@hotmail.com (Rick) wrote in message news:<b5**************************@posting.google. com>...
I wrote the following code as part of a page where users can reorder a
list of items by highlighting an item in a list box and clicking an
"up" or "down" button to move the items around. The code below is for
the up and down buttons along with a reset button (which reloads the
list as it was originally) and a change button which applies the
changes. In Explorer and Safari for Mac, this code works flawlessly.
When I tested on Explorer in Windows XP, the lines for the up, down
and change buttons generated an "object expected" error. The code for
the reset button worked fine.
<input type="button" value="up"
onClick="javascript:moveSelection('up');" />
<input type="button" value="down"
onClick="javascript:moveSelection('down');" />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<input type="button" onClick="javascript:window.location.reload();"
value="reset" />
<input type="button" onClick="javascript:sendit();" value="change"
/>
Barring a stupid oversight on my part (entirely within the realm of
possibility) I'm wondering if anyone knows if there is an specific bug
in Explorer XP that is causing this? Since the lines in question which
generate the error are calling functions, I think it's reasonable to
assume that's the issue. If so, is there a workaround or some
alternate method that will avoid this problem?

Thanks.

--Rick

Probably an error in your moveSelectin routine, even though the
error may be stated as being in the calling statement.
Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
In article <d3**************************@posting.google.com >, bruce
<br*************@glic.com> wrote:
Probably an error in your moveSelectin routine, even though the
error may be stated as being in the calling statement.


It also happens with the call to sendit() so that threw me off. I
wonder if I'm doing something at the start of both of those routines
that's causing IE on XP to choke. It's probably what's happening. I'll
look into it. Thanks.

Damn frustrating that IE on the Mac and XP have apparently different
implementations of Javascript.
Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:42:55 GMT, zurg wrote:
Damn frustrating that IE on the Mac and XP have apparently different
implementations of Javascript.


add, HTML, CSS, Java..

IE is a bottomless pit of woe for
web designers. Not only does it
break standards to which MS contributed,
but each IE implementation seems to break
them in subtly different ways. :-/

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
Andrew Thompson <Se********@www.invalid> wrote in message news:<1b*******************************@40tude.net >...
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:42:55 GMT, zurg wrote:
Damn frustrating that IE on the Mac and XP have apparently different
implementations of Javascript.


add, HTML, CSS, Java..

IE is a bottomless pit of woe for
web designers. Not only does it
break standards to which MS contributed,
but each IE implementation seems to break
them in subtly different ways. :-/

I beg to disagree. We have found IE to be the most consistent and
backwards-compatible of the browsers. We long ago discarded Netscape
as an option, due to the fact that each subsequent release seemed to
break all our code.
Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
Lee
bruce said:

Andrew Thompson <Se********@www.invalid> wrote in message
news:<1b*******************************@40tude.ne t>...
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:42:55 GMT, zurg wrote:
> Damn frustrating that IE on the Mac and XP have apparently different
> implementations of Javascript.


add, HTML, CSS, Java..

IE is a bottomless pit of woe for
web designers. Not only does it
break standards to which MS contributed,
but each IE implementation seems to break
them in subtly different ways. :-/

I beg to disagree. We have found IE to be the most consistent and
backwards-compatible of the browsers. We long ago discarded Netscape
as an option, due to the fact that each subsequent release seemed to
break all our code.


Netscape 4 was written before the standard was finalized, so the
upgrade from 4 to 6 was a significant change, and a significant
improvement. If you discarded Netscape because of that, you've
made a horrible mistake.

Favoring backwards-compatibility over progress is a trap.

Jul 23 '05 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.