By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
457,939 Members | 1,540 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 457,939 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

HTTP Request and opera 8

P: n/a

This [1]script not work with last Opera 8, but its work with Internet
Explorer and Firefox, the HTTP Request yet not work fine on the Opera?

[1]
function sendmessage(url, querystrings)
{
xmlhttp = checkxml();
if(xmlhttp)
{
xmlhttp.open("POST", url ,true); // Method and URL destination
try {xmlhttp.setRequestHeader("Content-type",
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8"); } catch(e) {} // Header

xmlhttp.onreadystatechange=function() // New function that check the
state of request
{
if(xmlhttp.readyState==4)
{
if(xmlhttp.status==200)
{
replymsg('replymsg', true);
document.getElementById('message').value = '';
if (xmlhttp.responseText==1)
{
alert("[{Your_message_was_sended}]");
}
}
if(xmlhttp.status==404) alert("[{Ops!_404_Not_Found}]");
}
}

xmlhttp.send(querystrings); // Transmits the request with querystrings
}
}

--
Marcos.
http://www.linuxhard.org
Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies


P: n/a


Marcos wrote:

This [1]script not work with last Opera 8, but its work with Internet
Explorer and Firefox, the HTTP Request yet not work fine on the Opera?
Unfortunately Opera has now released Opera 8.00 with an implementation
of XMLHttpRequest which lacks some of the properties and methods that
MSXML (used by IE) and that XMLHttpRequest in Mozilla implement. Their
whole engineering in regard to XMLHttpRequest seems to have been driven
by the goal of implementing the properties and methods GMail uses.
It seems the implemented properties and methods are

readyState
responseText
responseXML
status
open
send
abort
getAllResponseHeaders
getResponseHeader

try {xmlhttp.setRequestHeader("Content-type",
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8"); } catch(e) {} // Header


setRequestHeader is not implemented in Opera 8.00 thus you cannot inform
the server about the content type of the data you are POSTing with the
send method.

--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/
Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
Martin Honnen wrote:
try {xmlhttp.setRequestHeader("Content-type",
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8"); } catch(e) {} //
Header

setRequestHeader is not implemented in Opera 8.00 thus you cannot
inform the server about the content type of the data you are POSTing
with the send method.


In other words, Opera lags behind once again.

Since very few people use Opera anyway (why not use Firefox instead?) I
don't even care about supporting its quirks and random implementations of
features other browsers have. If people choose to use a browser that lacks
the capabilities of others, and the others are freely available for them to
use, then IMO those users are _choosing_ to have a lesser web browsing
experience, possibly with errors and non-functioning scripts.

The same could easily be said for IE, but the reality is that IE is still
the dominant browser, so it's not as easy to ignore as Opera is ;)

--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a


Matt Kruse wrote:
Martin Honnen wrote:
try {xmlhttp.setRequestHeader("Content-type",
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8"); } catch(e) {} //
Header


setRequestHeader is not implemented in Opera 8.00 thus you cannot
inform the server about the content type of the data you are POSTing
with the send method.

In other words, Opera lags behind once again.


I am disappointed myself that Opera didn't care to provide a compatible
implementation of XMLHttpRequest in the final release of 8.00 although
they already had a partial implementation in those 7.60 preview and 8.00
beta releases.
As I have already said their only goal for XMLHttpRequest os far seems
to be that GMail works with Opera 8.

But you cannot say that they generally lag behind with features in Opera
8, they have SVG tiny support (scalable vector graphics), they are the
first browser to have DOM Level 3 Load and Save (only there is not much
that gives you that Mozilla couldn't do with
XMLHttpRequest/DOMParser/XMLSerializer), they have DOM Level 2 range and
tree walker/traversal support.

--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/
Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
Martin Honnen wrote:
But you cannot say that they generally lag behind with features in
Opera 8, they have SVG tiny support (scalable vector graphics), they
are the first browser to have DOM Level 3 Load and Save (only there
is not much that gives you that Mozilla couldn't do with
XMLHttpRequest/DOMParser/XMLSerializer), they have DOM Level 2 range
and tree walker/traversal support.


It seems that Opera often puts in "cool" new features, but ignores some key
compatability features that make it a hit-and-miss browser for users.

For example, way back when, Opera didn't even support new Option() at all,
yet it was introducing new things like skins and gestures, etc.

I was mostly ranting in my previous post (Opera's not that bad ;) but still,
I often question their decision-making process for what new features get top
priority.

--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:51:10 +0200, Martin Honnen <ma*******@yahoo.de>
wrote:


Matt Kruse wrote:
Martin Honnen wrote:
try {xmlhttp.setRequestHeader("Content-type",
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8"); } catch(e) {} //
Header

setRequestHeader is not implemented in Opera 8.00 thus you cannot
inform the server about the content type of the data you are POSTing
with the send method.

In other words, Opera lags behind once again.


I am disappointed myself that Opera didn't care to provide a compatible
implementation of XMLHttpRequest in the final release of 8.00 although
they already had a partial implementation in those 7.60 preview and 8.00
beta releases.


It's pretty disgusting in my opinion, Opera continously knock IE for
their standards compatibility, and here they are not bothering to
implement trivial parts of specifications they have standardised.

Jim.
Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
Matt Kruse <ne********@mattkruse.com> spoke thus:
I was mostly ranting in my previous post (Opera's not that bad ;) but still,
I often question their decision-making process for what new features get top
priority.


I love Opera, but I agree, some of these things are starting to get
ridiculous. The main reason I continue to use Opera is mouse
gestures; should a browser that *really* conforms to standards
implement them, I'll switch.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a
In article <d4**********@chessie.cirr.com>, at***@nospam.cyberspace.org
enlightened us with...
I love Opera, but I agree, some of these things are starting to get
ridiculous. The main reason I continue to use Opera is mouse
gestures; should a browser that *really* conforms to standards
implement them, I'll switch.

Like this? https://addons.update.mozilla.org/ex...numpg=10&id=39


--
--
~kaeli~
If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day
and a half, how long would it take for a monkey with a
wooden leg to kick the dill seeds out of a pickle?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
Martin Honnen wrote:
But you cannot say that they generally lag behind with features in
Opera 8, they have SVG tiny support (scalable vector graphics), they
are the first browser to have DOM Level 3 Load and Save <X> they have DOM Level 2 range and tree walker/traversal support.

Thanks for pointing that out, Martin :-)

Matt Kruse wrote:
It seems that Opera often puts in "cool" new features, but ignores some
key compatability features that make it a hit-and-miss browser for users.
For example, way back when, Opera didn't even support new Option() at
all, yet it was introducing new things like skins and gestures, etc.


The missing bits in the implementation of XMLHttpRequest are regrettable,
it will be fixed and hopefully in the near future. Opera is also active in
the WHAT WG work (whatwg.org), which should improve cross-browser
compatibility in general. I think you're being more than a little unfair
when you bring up incompatibilities from "way back when" :-p and compare
DOM and UI improvements, which are very different things.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:21:08 +0200, "Hallvord R. M. Steen"
<ha******@operamail.com> wrote:
The missing bits in the implementation of XMLHttpRequest are regrettable,


It's more than regrettable, it's the sort of intentional release of
incompatible APIs that we see from Microsoft, that Opera regularly
complain about. Howcome wrote for CNET
"how embarrassing it will be to release a browser that doesn't live up
to community standards "

Yet they fail in that very fact, are they embarrassed? Or are they
simply hypocrites?

You mention the WHAT-WG, and Opera being involved in it. the WHAT-WG
say this about the XML http request object "Do not implement this in a
production product" So they're completely ignoring their own
"standard".

I'm sorry, I don't think we should have any generosity towards Opera
here. They've shown that's not standards or compatibility they care
about, but making it work with GMail, and not giving two hoots about
every other use out there.

Jim.
Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
<snip>
Matt Kruse wrote: <snip>
.. . For example, way back when, Opera didn't even support new
Option() at all, yet it was introducing new things like skins
and gestures, etc.


The missing bits in the implementation of XMLHttpRequest are
regrettable, it will be fixed and hopefully in the near future.


Should their absence have been allowed past QA in the first place? ;-)

<snip> ... . I think you're being more than a little unfair when
you bring up incompatibilities from "way back when" :-p ...

<snip>

More disingenuous than unfair, as when Matt eventually admitted, in the
past, that his complaint related to Opera 5.02 a little testing revealed
that version fully and happily supporting the dynamic creation and
addition of OPTION elements to SELECT elements using - new Option() -.
Matt's problems with that browser actually stemmed form his trust in an
unreliable source of compatibility information (quirksmode.com) and an
unwillingness, or inability, to analyse his problem to the point of
identifying its real cause (and so its solution).

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
Matt Kruse <ne********@mattkruse.com> spoke thus:
I was mostly ranting in my previous post (Opera's not that bad ;) but
still, I often question their decision-making process for what new
features get top priority.


I love Opera, but I agree, some of these things are starting to get
ridiculous. The main reason I continue to use Opera is mouse
gestures; should a browser that *really* conforms to standards
implement them, I'll switch.


Alas, there is no UA that *really* conforms to (the latest) standards. The
nearest thing to that you can get other than Opera is Mozilla/5.0 Seamonkey
or Firefox for which the mouse gestures (Optimoz/MozGest) extension has
been available for a long time now :)
PointedEars, mouse-gesturing
--
Das eine oder andere Gute steckt schon im Menschen.
Ansonsten wären Organspenden ja völlig überflüssig.
-- Holger Kunadt in dag° <bb************@ID-41865.news.dfncis.de>
Jul 23 '05 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.