By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,543 Members | 1,887 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,543 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

FAQ Topic - How do I prompt a "Save As" dialog for an accepted mime type?

P: n/a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - How do I prompt a "Save As" dialog for an
accepted mime type?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not possible with client-side JavaScript.

Some browsers accept the Content-Disposition header, but this
must be added by the server. Taking the form:-
` Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=filename.ext `

http://aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2161

http://support.microsoft.com/support.../Q260/5/19.ASP
===
Postings such as this are automatically sent once a day. Their
goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html.
The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers.

May 11 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
60 Replies


P: n/a
FAQ server wrote on 12 mei 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - How do I prompt a "Save As" dialog for an
accepted mime type?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not possible with client-side JavaScript.
Which is logical, my dear Watson Faq, as the below header line ASP-
insertion is "executed" in the browser BEFORE any clientside code runs.

From a clientside only webside point of view,
a view held by many clientside javascript programmers out of necessity,
the question realy is:

Is there anything in a clickable anchor, that forces such user response?

There is!

<a href='x.html'
onclick='alert("please rightclick, choose `save as...`");return false;'
>download me</a>
==================
Some browsers accept the Content-Disposition header, but this
must be added by the server. Taking the form:-
` Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=filename.ext `
<script language='jscript' runat='server'//ASP-enabled server needed
Response.AddHeader('content-disposition','attachment;filename=x.html');
</script>
http://aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2161
[shows only ASP-vbscript]
>
http://support.microsoft.com/support.../Q260/5/19.ASP

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
May 12 '07 #2

P: n/a
On May 12, 9:07 am, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.netwrote:
FAQ server wrote on 12 mei 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - How do I prompt a "Save As" dialog for an
accepted mime type?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not possible with client-side JavaScript.

Which is logical, my dear Watson Faq, as the below header line ASP-
insertion is "executed" in the browser BEFORE any clientside code runs.

From a clientside only webside point of view,
a view held by many clientside javascript programmers out of necessity,
the question realy is:

Is there anything in a clickable anchor, that forces such user response?

There is!

<a href='x.html'
onclick='alert("please rightclick, choose `save as...`");return false;'
download me</a>

==================
Some browsers accept the Content-Disposition header, but this
must be added by the server. Taking the form:-
` Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=filename.ext `

<script language='jscript' runat='server'//ASP-enabled server needed
Response.AddHeader('content-disposition','attachment;filename=x.html');
</script>
http://aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2161

[shows only ASP-vbscript]
http://support.microsoft.com/support.../Q260/5/19.ASP

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
<html>
<head></head>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="0" height="0" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<a href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,MSwyLDMsNA=="
target="file">click here</a>
</body>
</html>

May 12 '07 #3

P: n/a
shimmyshack wrote:
<html>
<head></head>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="0" height="0" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<a href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,MSwyLDMsNA=="
target="file">click here</a>
</body>
</html>
I find it odd that only Opera gets it right.

Isn't this type of thing useless for all MIME types that the browser can
open natively?

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 12 '07 #4

P: n/a
On May 12, 12:13 pm, -Lost <maventheextrawo...@techie.comwrote:
shimmyshack wrote:
<html>
<head></head>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="0" height="0" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<a href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,MSwyLDMsNA=="
target="file">click here</a>
</body>
</html>

I find it odd that only Opera gets it right.

Isn't this type of thing useless for all MIME types that the browser can
open natively?

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
yes you are right.
but what if you dont set the correct mimetype for the file,
I haven't pushed at the edges on this one.

<html>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="100" height="100" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<?php
$data = file_get_contents( 'http://groups.google.com/groups/img/gicons/
science_n_technology_42.gif' );
#$mime = 'image/gif'; #true mimetype
$mime = 'application/x-unknown'; #arbitrary one
?>
<a href="data:data:<?php echo $mime; ?>;base64,<?php echo
base64_encode($data);?>" target="file">click here</a>
</body>
</html>

The filename is the tough part, it's argueable whether a "save as"
dialog _is_ prompted for an accepted mime because we are setting an
unacceptable mime, for data which after all doesnt have an intrisic
mime. I just thought this was worth a mention, a curiosity for mozilla
based browsers, one wonders if it's a feature that might be removed
later - if it is never adopted by IE.

May 12 '07 #5

P: n/a
ASM
shimmyshack a écrit :
>
<html>
<head></head>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="0" height="0" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<a href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,MSwyLDMsNA=="
target="file">click here</a>
</body>
</html>
Funny, on my Mac with FF in local, that opens Excel with in 1st cell
'1,2,3,4'
(after a dialog to 'open' or 'save' or 'cancel')
and ... nothing comes in the iframe.

the name of the sheat is : 5zfcwiy0-1.xls
- from where this name comes ?
- from where '1,2,3,4' comes ?

Where to find some more informations about this
href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,..." ?

Can we use it with other applications !MS ?
application/openoffice.org;
application/another-application;

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
May 12 '07 #6

P: n/a
On May 12, 2:16 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:
shimmyshack a écrit :
<html>
<head></head>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="0" height="0" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<a href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,MSwyLDMsNA=="
target="file">click here</a>
</body>
</html>

Funny, on my Mac with FF in local, that opens Excel with in 1st cell
'1,2,3,4'
(after a dialog to 'open' or 'save' or 'cancel')
and ... nothing comes in the iframe.

the name of the sheat is : 5zfcwiy0-1.xls
- from where this name comes ?
- from where '1,2,3,4' comes ?

Where to find some more informations about this
href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,..." ?

Can we use it with other applications !MS ?
application/openoffice.org;
application/another-application;

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
i've seen it used in ajax apps a bit, for small images, not sure why,
perhaps just because they could.

its not M$ compaitible - they never implemented this.
the name is randomly generated by your OS, and the source
MSwyLDMsNA==
is 1,2,3,4 base64 encoded
here's a start:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2397.txt
and you could use it with whatever application deals with the mimetype
you specify in the source.

cool huh, but limited in scope

May 12 '07 #7

P: n/a
ASM
shimmyshack a écrit :
>
<html>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="100" height="100" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<?php
$data = file_get_contents( 'http://groups.google.com/groups/img/gicons/
science_n_technology_42.gif' );
How, with JS, could I get content of my image file ?
(gif image on same domain)
#$mime = 'image/gif'; #true mimetype
$mime = 'application/x-unknown'; #arbitrary one
?>
<a href="data:data:<?php echo $mime; ?>;base64,<?php echo
base64_encode($data);?>" target="file">click here</a>
is it : href="data:data: ... "
or : href="data: ... "
?

</body>
</html>

The filename is the tough part, it's argueable whether a "save as"
dialog _is_ prompted for an accepted mime because we are setting an
unacceptable mime, for data which after all doesnt have an intrisic
mime. I just thought this was worth a mention, a curiosity for mozilla
based browsers, one wonders if it's a feature that might be removed
later - if it is never adopted by IE.
Tried with FF followed code (*) :

onclick="parent.myfile.location.href='data:image/gif;base64,'+
encodeBase64(document.images[0].src); return false;"

but the iframe tells :
picture “”
can't be dispayed because of errors.

Think 'data' is the image's url (encoded in base 64)
(*) encodeBase64() is a JS encoding function found here :
<http://www.ioswebdesign.com/index.php/2006/12/06/>

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
May 12 '07 #8

P: n/a
On May 12, 2:52 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:
shimmyshack a écrit :
<html>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="100" height="100" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<?php
$data = file_get_contents( 'http://groups.google.com/groups/img/gicons/
science_n_technology_42.gif' );

How, with JS, could I get content of my image file ?
(gif image on same domain)
#$mime = 'image/gif'; #true mimetype
$mime = 'application/x-unknown'; #arbitrary one
?>
<a href="data:data:<?php echo $mime; ?>;base64,<?php echo
base64_encode($data);?>" target="file">click here</a>

is it : href="data:data: ... "
or : href="data: ... "
?
</body>
</html>
The filename is the tough part, it's argueable whether a "save as"
dialog _is_ prompted for an accepted mime because we are setting an
unacceptable mime, for data which after all doesnt have an intrisic
mime. I just thought this was worth a mention, a curiosity for mozilla
based browsers, one wonders if it's a feature that might be removed
later - if it is never adopted by IE.

Tried with FF followed code (*) :

onclick="parent.myfile.location.href='data:image/gif;base64,'+
encodeBase64(document.images[0].src); return false;"

but the iframe tells :
picture ""
can't be dispayed because of errors.

Think 'data' is the image's url (encoded in base 64)

(*) encodeBase64() is a JS encoding function found here :
<http://www.ioswebdesign.com/index.php/2006/12/06/>

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
I think it's the binary data.
What you would do is have an XHR call return base64 encoded data from
a serverside script, the string would then not have errors. Depending
on the browser, there might be a limit to the size of the image, this
method would be best for very small images.

May 12 '07 #9

P: n/a
ASM wrote:
Where to find some more informations about this
href="data:application/vnd.ms-excel;base64,..." ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data:_URI_scheme

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 12 '07 #10

P: n/a
shimmyshack wrote:
On May 12, 2:52 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:
>shimmyshack a écrit :
>> <html>
<body>
<iframe frameborder="0" width="100" height="100" src="" id="file"
name="file"></iframe>
<?php
$data = file_get_contents( 'http://groups.google.com/groups/img/gicons/
science_n_technology_42.gif' );
How, with JS, could I get content of my image file ?
(gif image on same domain)
>>#$mime = 'image/gif'; #true mimetype
$mime = 'application/x-unknown'; #arbitrary one
?>
<a href="data:data:<?php echo $mime; ?>;base64,<?php echo
base64_encode($data);?>" target="file">click here</a>
is it : href="data:data: ... "
or : href="data: ... "
?
>></body>
</html>
The filename is the tough part, it's argueable whether a "save as"
dialog _is_ prompted for an accepted mime because we are setting an
unacceptable mime, for data which after all doesnt have an intrisic
mime. I just thought this was worth a mention, a curiosity for mozilla
based browsers, one wonders if it's a feature that might be removed
later - if it is never adopted by IE.
Tried with FF followed code (*) :

onclick="parent.myfile.location.href='data:imag e/gif;base64,'+
encodeBase64(document.images[0].src); return false;"

but the iframe tells :
picture ""
can't be dispayed because of errors.

Think 'data' is the image's url (encoded in base 64)

(*) encodeBase64() is a JS encoding function found here :
<http://www.ioswebdesign.com/index.php/2006/12/06/>

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date

I think it's the binary data.
What you would do is have an XHR call return base64 encoded data from
a serverside script, the string would then not have errors. Depending
on the browser, there might be a limit to the size of the image, this
method would be best for very small images.
Since we are a tad off topic anyway.

Here is code I use:

// PHP
$temp = 'image_name.x';
$temp_h = fopen($temp, 'rb');
$contents = fread($temp_h, filesize($temp));
fclose($temp_h);
$encoded = base64_encode($contents);
print '<img src="data:image/png;base64,' . $encoded . '" />';

You can see more at that Data URI article from Wikipedia.

Oh, and Internet Explorer 6 does not play Data URIs. I have no clue
about version 7.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 12 '07 #11

P: n/a
ASM
shimmyshack a écrit :
On May 12, 2:52 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:
>Think 'data' is the image's url (encoded in base 64)
I think it's the binary data.
What you would do is have an XHR call return base64 encoded data from
a serverside script, the string would then not have errors.
I would prefer to do everything in JS.
there might be a limit to the size of the image, this
method would be best for very small images.
A small gif in pure html href="data: ..." :
http://stephane.moriaux.perso.orange...vicon.gif.html

Hope that works with IE ?

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
May 12 '07 #12

P: n/a
ASM
-Lost a écrit :
>
Oh, and Internet Explorer 6 does not play Data URIs. I have no clue
about version 7.
Oh ! it seems my IE(Mac) doesn't more :-(

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
May 12 '07 #13

P: n/a
ASM wrote:
shimmyshack a écrit :
>On May 12, 2:52 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:
>>Think 'data' is the image's url (encoded in base 64)

>I think it's the binary data.
What you would do is have an XHR call return base64 encoded data from
a serverside script, the string would then not have errors.

I would prefer to do everything in JS.
My friend, I seriously doubt this will happen. Even though I have seen
some neat image creation methods in JavaScript, I doubt very much binary
interaction can go on. I would love to be proved wrong on this one though.
>there might be a limit to the size of the image, this
method would be best for very small images.

A small gif in pure html href="data: ..." :
http://stephane.moriaux.perso.orange...vicon.gif.html

Hope that works with IE ?
Nope, not in Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP SP2.

Try this one in a browser that reads it:

<img
src=" XSq1SAAAABmJLR0QA/wD/AP+gvaeTAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAALEwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH1w UMDzEDFdGnygAAACl0RVh0Q29tbWVudABDcmVhdGVkIHdpdGgg VGhlIEdJTVAsIGJ5IE1pY2hhZWykgeE7AAALg0lEQVR42u2de7 BVVR3HP+fyMJSXyktApSQ0qWGCJiSy1MwHOuUrhjKZJhgrbEQZ IlOHkXAK05JemoMpSiaJCgEhAmFXAUEREQqvCkogD0NJQYiHeP pj/fbcfffd5+zH2eeee67fz8ydwz5n771++7fWb/3W77fW2oAQQgghhBBCCCGEEEIIIYQQQgghhBBCCCGEEEIIIYQQ QgghhBBCCCGEEEIIIYQQIoRWUoEQQogq5GygB/CmVCGEEKIlsQdYV+yEGulICCFEFdIB2J+FgxsI3A7UAv8AFtvn i8ATwIUh11wD3JbRg3QBZgILrew88EyVVMIwYDYwB3gf2F7i/bLUa7lII2NP4OfACuA54J/Av4GVwMgMZesC3GdtaZG1pYXqKxrUW1Pa20nA68CDEec9DtS1M H1PCuj42QrLc4zJ9BjwV2AL8CfghBLvOwp41fq/vRnb4H9K7QxmWwO8Cmgf+D0HnA8cAboGfqszwctBHni5Cht0Fj opp14r9ZwjgJ1mCG0D7etkoG8ZZc0Da+XbitZbOe2tNbAN+F9I/+LHcwLdWqDeP2fP9kIFZegErAF+YnYHMDjjAWCx9rU2pe3ekza Ca29R2sctgpthHjhYwJN2n7OauEIOqT9qEVwB/BkYDfwxUK95i+I2llmGl1QNFbO3D3CZoI9ZtiOqr/psC9TtQPv8WwVluAP4LzDF54TW2OeRJig/rQ3uSOvgJgD9gbHAuzEKOjOhYDlgIjA/5YPtVZ9T9RwHTMOlue
dXUI65qoqK2VtH4CBuLmV4gXM+7evIBrZA3Z5onz+rUPm9ge8C 9wYirAEWdY1pxjaY2sFdZJ8rE4TZSdISvwauB+5O+WC71OdUPa OBzsD0CpXfLTBSFU1vbxcD84CHrM/pEHLOGOAm3Pz1oBaoW68dHqhQ+V83X7DSAo+e9t104FTc2ovbC 9RNpW1wZ1oHd9g+PxUzvF2aQKjf2/37lRCWv64+p+q52D4rtWBoaBwjEWW1t8us77gHl6a8JPB7Z6A7 LlW9POFAulroXKDjb9NE5Z9hn9uBOy342GeDidOB1cB4YAkN58 ibgw3uSFvwDyxcrYvp5IKUe5HJlVXYkLXIpCHv4Pay5Cok50ST U9tlitdbueytHbDed7yGxgsarqU+dXk9LXOhyYKA3q8GXsOlb5 uC5VZ+rkgg9KSdMyrj9lWKDeZxi9BSUWOjqrxFWzOAc2IIsgi3 s/wD6lfHrAKus99Pxi0qmAm8BXzbFDsVt5R+rl23wRSyFbgh5MHu wK2s2mKNYUjgnC8CT9k9VwCTcW9umYJb+vq+yXk3sAk3x/DDkOcJkzerCs4lkCeNXjtY6ufvuHmOt+y7G4BXzLkMyVAnUTIG +RB4I4UeewOP2jN08n3/Y5M7blu6v0CHPszazAzc5PcU3HxhlC7PiNBRh4T3IKZsbVPUYR KbjWNvaezkInsOj2tMhh4++1hukZ0XaeSpnz4hhs37+6vuwG9w 876rgLetzCgZvfstNie8APiLtcF9NJyfnA+8F3KfYmU/5XMwk3BL3/vHlOVx4PgSHdy/YgxIv2znzEmg8xzwS4v+p5meguX4bfAEXJr2Zfv063EpjdeC5H FbG1KTA75hxpe3v624/UqnpvDWPS0M/iZwNIWXh+ZxK+dqcKvsgo06j9t7V2PGkMfliT06mjKvsuM+ds5 3QuQbYqmAXTTeUxFX3iwimzjylKJX77rVptM2dnxvGXQSN4Lba 20rCefiVt2NszJ+
Yd+Pt+MxCdrSghA5z8KtGvMiloF2zuQEusyqPihBtqh2lDSCK2 Zvae3krkB9HWsd2zg7/hIN5+iPsoHB5JB7Rdl8L+u7xvkG8FHbHybaIOxyX3TjXXdjAZ2 F6TCq7JV2PMWcQb+UspQz4+LV60sJdP4tX1vM2cAoHxG9tk+g1 3xW2Z8a4CvAAzZC9JzdNN/oKo7S7jMv3Ar4mv3+SAGD8jZ1drHjWYHf/U7Yf75nKIutUmpsdJmn4Uq9oHyvlCBvlg6umDyl6NW7rofvuwP WwWatk7gObpmd96GNaDebM3rVyq6zv+W+VMQm4DT79yO4/VMjgd24ifEkbWlFiJxLrRP1zzVsD0SaUbrMqj4oQbaodpTUwRW ztzR2krPOPLhoZKalLXO4zd9DA7+vtAg4SJTNP2CZqGMKtI0w9 uPmhloHvj9I/absOB1xVNlr7Hgn8AfcSw7203BLRBxZyung2oQ4uCidP20Rbk2 RclbE7OcKObjMaW952M1WwF0JlLbLOq8zcZs73y0Qivsr3xulr PONFvNFzve40BT9mG90vz6hAuPKWw4HV5fAwcWRM+y6/sApZdBJXAd3nY0Ak0ymH+X7d1/rOPbgJsNJ2JbWhsi5PyRtuomGe4GidJlVfZCBbEnmbAtlB6LsL Y2d9MXtrWsbYrd54KuWOguO0KdapxnWZorZ/O4Q3T2K2w5ViFV2j1UWpRzvi5wHJNB3VNnr7ZoLcC/MON+Ob0koSzkd3EkhgUaUzvfTcHFSWDlrS3BwEygjPWz0vDeB0 g7bd7stX9+3QLToNyAvNH7Rjm+JYXDX+hoMNrIMnhNHgXHkbQ4 OLo6ccRpxVjqJ26l2sAjk8pT67Gd5+kMFHENUW9pQwMEFN5a/E5gPiHq+LHVUqmylOrg49pbGTr5P+ItyW1ukspPwfWFe2mtw4P somz9A8hcG9LJI9JDd6whuvvKTCfUdVXawHXawsmoTylJOBzfC zhmeQOeHLS
1ZrJwNJTi4spLDTUzvTKC0OjOCmsBIzt9YBwWUdLodT7fjJTEM Lpi26ZjSwcWR9w3cRuVKOrg4cmbl4LIqy+McM4IeEYOpViHOcR 1wqdX3wpDRflRbKpQyec93r+52zhMJni9rHZUiW6kOLo69xXne IA/bXxh3Uj93Exb55Wm88CzK5lfZAMGf4jst5D5hdMLNL9baPZeG6 CxXJCUcVXaY3ldb+rFdTFluIv1cnFd+N8JXzNdY23s6UMdROt9 o7bUmoj9J6+Am4eYmCxK1InKARWj3A1/wnd/GlNkLuDmBIqda3tZbYdXZRiWf8J3jvRGlK27O5BIbrfzW19nFS aP2tvC9D/CrlBUfR94+FH+HXlMQR87mWtZS3Cq/ebg5tNYBx/ZT3AT9uYHrfodbgTcb+JGldYJLmKPaUhi3maF6cz+j7Zpbm0F9 ZCFbmkxNOZ53sKU1w3jIPoeG/LbJotbzEtr8zZYOHekbHCwievPyWOv4H/ZlGg76fvf2YZ0IfB73akMyKLvWrhmEm9ecFiHLjeb4SmG4ZTdG +eywI/VvOLkUN18eV+ez7PrzcFMLSfrJt33967ACbWk8bhFkSVHaCOt8 tuCW/67Drf6ZhVsiWohnabxcNodbNfUa9f8rQfBN8Q9ahzbV8rcbabh 4YC2NVz55I3iPq63svZYyOcWOn/ads5yGmwSfo/GmwSh5vRRY3FxwbZGUbhx5StHrMqLfxp6FTgrJGMWxuBe9Lgae t+zAbju+IhCd9bey/cuR54REBFFtaQnhr6G70kbQz5jBX5BQl1nVBylki9uO4tpsHHu L87xBttmgpJD+NlD4DTdzLaIgoc0Pwa3aW2L92K00XrQRZII9V y1ubmkmDd+uf7a11c3W4a4i/L2KxcpeG0jlec59nw0UxtogrZgszxPx4uGIQeabJs9Ya1/brH3VAt8roKconR9tfmIPbiHSMtyGfWLY4GVm/9ttABwWGb+AW5RTVayk
ev5bjD7WCLsi1JaEEOUi1Rxcc3yDQ68qUvpncDlgvRezedJLKh Dio0vrZijTcRYVVQPz1ISaNdXUloQQGdMcI7h2qhahtiSEaIkO LqdqEWpLQohSaY4pyq3E+w9WhVBbEuKjwQ7cqkwhhBBCCCGEEE IIIYQQQgghhBBCCCGEEEIIIYQQQgghhBBCCCGEEM2Z/wO4B+RS04XfkAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg=="
/>

(I hope all this comes across, I am not entirely sure how to clip this
at a reasonable length.)

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 12 '07 #14

P: n/a
On May 12, 4:54 pm, -Lost <maventheextrawo...@techie.comwrote:
ASM wrote:
shimmyshack a écrit :
On May 12, 2:52 pm, ASM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:
Think 'data' is the image's url (encoded in base 64)
I think it's the binary data.
What you would do is have an XHR call return base64 encoded data from
a serverside script, the string would then not have errors.
I would prefer to do everything in JS.

My friend, I seriously doubt this will happen. Even though I have seen
some neat image creation methods in JavaScript, I doubt very much binary
interaction can go on. I would love to be proved wrong on this one though.
there might be a limit to the size of the image, this
method would be best for very small images.
A small gif in pure html href="data: ..." :
http://stephane.moriaux.perso.orange...vicon.gif.html
Hope that works with IE ?

Nope, not in Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP SP2.

Try this one in a browser that reads it:

<img
src=" XSq1SAAAABmJLR0QA/wD/AP+gvaeTAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAALEwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH1w UMDzEDFdGnygAAACl0RVh0Q29tbWVudABDcmVhdGVkIHdpdGgg VGhlIEdJTVAsIGJ5IE1pY2hhZWykgeE7AAALg0lEQVR42u2de7 BVVR3HP+fyMJSXyktApSQ0qWGCJiSy1MwHOuUrhjKZJhgrbEQZ IlOHkXAK05JemoMpSiaJCgEhAmFXAUEREQqvCkogD0NJQYiHeP pj/fbcfffd5+zH2eeee67fz8ydwz5n771++7fWb/3W77fW2oAQQgghhBBCCCGEEEIIIYQQQgghhBBCCCGEEEIIIYQQ QgghhBBCCCGEEEIIIYQQIoRWUoEQQogq5GygB/CmVCGEEKIlsQdYV+yEGulICCFEFdIB2J+FgxsI3A7UAv8AFtvn i8ATwIUh11wD3JbRg3QBZgILrew88EyVVMIwYDYwB3gf2F7i/bLUa7lII2NP4OfACuA54J/Av4GVwMgMZesC3GdtaZG1pYXqKxrUW1Pa20nA68CDEec9DtS1M H1PCuj42QrLc4zJ9BjwV2AL8CfghBLvOwp41fq/vRnb4H9K7QxmWwO8Cmgf+D0HnA8cAboGfqszwctBHni5Cht0Fj opp14r9ZwjgJ1mCG0D7etkoG8ZZc0Da+XbitZbOe2tNbAN+F9I/+LHcwLdWqDeP2fP9kIFZegErAF+YnYHMDjjAWCx9rU2pe3ekza Ca29R2sctgpthHjhYwJN2n7OauEIOqT9qEVwB/BkYDfwxUK95i+I2llmGl1QNFbO3D3CZoI9ZtiOqr/psC9TtQPv8WwVluAP4LzDF54TW2OeRJig/rQ3uSOvgJgD9gbHAuzEKOjOhYDlgIjA/5YPtVZ9T9RwHTMOlue
dXUI65qoqK2VtH4CBuLmV4gXM+7evIBrZA3Z5onz+rUPm9ge8C 9wYirAEWdY1pxjaY2sFdZJ8rE4TZSdISvwauB+5O+WC71OdUPa OBzsD0CpXfLTBSFU1vbxcD84CHrM/pEHLOGOAm3Pz1oBaoW68dHqhQ+V83X7DSAo+e9t104FTc2ovbC 9RNpW1wZ1oHd9g+PxUzvF2aQKjf2/37lRCWv64+p+q52D4rtWBoaBwjEWW1t8us77gHl6a8JPB7Z6A7 LlW9POFAulroXKDjb9NE5Z9hn9uBOy342GeDidOB1cB4YAkN58 ibgw3uSFvwDyxcrYvp5IKUe5HJlVXYkLXIpCHv4Pay5Cok50ST U9tlitdbueytHbDed7yGxgsarqU+dXk9LXOhyYKA3q8GXsOlb5 uC5VZ+rkgg9KSdMyrj9lWKDeZxi9BSUWOjqrxFWzOAc2IIsgi3 s/wD6lfHrAKus99Pxi0qmAm8BXzbFDsVt5R+rl23wRSyFbgh5MHu wK2s2mKNYUjgnC8CT9k9VwCTcW9umYJb+vq+yXk3sAk3x/DDkOcJkzerCs4lkCeNXjtY6ufvuHmOt+y7G4BXzLkMyVAnUTIG +RB4I4UeewOP2jN08n3/Y5M7blu6v0CHPszazAzc5PcU3HxhlC7PiNBRh4T3IKZsbVPUYR KbjWNvaezkInsOj2tMhh4++1hukZ0XaeSpnz4hhs37+6vuwG9w 876rgLetzCgZvfstNie8APiLtcF9NJyfnA+8F3KfYmU/5XMwk3BL3/vHlOVx4PgSHdy/YgxIv2znzEmg8xzwS4v+p5meguX4bfAEXJr2Zfv063EpjdeC5H FbG1KTA75hxpe3v624/UqnpvDWPS0M/iZwNIWXh+ZxK+dqcKvsgo06j9t7V2PGkMfliT06mjKvsuM+ds5 3QuQbYqmAXTTeUxFX3iwimzjylKJX77rVptM2dnxvGXQSN4Lba 20rCefiVt2NszJ+
Yd+Pt+MxCdrSghA5z8KtGvMiloF2zuQEusyqPihBtqh2lDSCK2 Zvae3krkB9HWsd2zg7/hIN5+iPsoHB5JB7Rdl8L+u7xvkG8FHbHybaIOxyX3TjXXdjAZ2 F6TCq7JV2PMWcQb+UspQz4+LV60sJdP4tX1vM2cAoHxG9tk+g1 3xW2Z8a4CvAAzZC9JzdNN/oKo7S7jMv3Ar4mv3+SAGD8jZ1drHjWYHf/U7Yf75nKIutUmpsdJmn4Uq9oHyvlCBvlg6umDyl6NW7rofvuwP WwWatk7gObpmd96GNaDebM3rVyq6zv+W+VMQm4DT79yO4/VMjgd24ifEkbWlFiJxLrRP1zzVsD0SaUbrMqj4oQbaodpTUwRW ztzR2krPOPLhoZKalLXO4zd9DA7+vtAg4SJTNP2CZqGMKtI0w9 uPmhloHvj9I/absOB1xVNlr7Hgn8AfcSw7203BLRBxZyung2oQ4uCidP20Rbk2 RclbE7OcKObjMaW952M1WwF0JlLbLOq8zcZs73y0Qivsr3xulr PONFvNFzve40BT9mG90vz6hAuPKWw4HV5fAwcWRM+y6/sApZdBJXAd3nY0Ak0ymH+X7d1/rOPbgJsNJ2JbWhsi5PyRtuomGe4GidJlVfZCBbEnmbAtlB6LsL Y2d9MXtrWsbYrd54KuWOguO0KdapxnWZorZ/O4Q3T2K2w5ViFV2j1UWpRzvi5wHJNB3VNnr7ZoLcC/MON+Ob0koSzkd3EkhgUaUzvfTcHFSWDlrS3BwEygjPWz0vDeB0 g7bd7stX9+3QLToNyAvNH7Rjm+JYXDX+hoMNrIMnhNHgXHkbQ4 OLo6ccRpxVjqJ26l2sAjk8pT67Gd5+kMFHENUW9pQwMEFN5a/E5gPiHq+LHVUqmylOrg49pbGTr5P+ItyW1ukspPwfWFe2mtw4P somz9A8hcG9LJI9JDd6whuvvKTCfUdVXawHXawsmoTylJOBzfC zhmeQOeHLS
1ZrJwNJTi4spLDTUzvTKC0OjOCmsBIzt9YBwWUdLodT7fjJTEM Lpi26ZjSwcWR9w3cRuVKOrg4cmbl4LIqy+McM4IeEYOpViHOcR 1wqdX3wpDRflRbKpQyec93r+52zhMJni9rHZUiW6kOLo69xXne IA/bXxh3Uj93Exb55Wm88CzK5lfZAMGf4jst5D5hdMLNL9baPZeG6 CxXJCUcVXaY3ldb+rFdTFluIv1cnFd+N8JXzNdY23s6UMdROt9 o7bUmoj9J6+Am4eYmCxK1InKARWj3A1/wnd/GlNkLuDmBIqda3tZbYdXZRiWf8J3jvRGlK27O5BIbrfzW19nFS aP2tvC9D/CrlBUfR94+FH+HXlMQR87mWtZS3Cq/ebg5tNYBx/ZT3AT9uYHrfodbgTcb+JGldYJLmKPaUhi3maF6cz+j7Zpbm0F9 ZCFbmkxNOZ53sKU1w3jIPoeG/LbJotbzEtr8zZYOHekbHCwievPyWOv4H/ZlGg76fvf2YZ0IfB73akMyKLvWrhmEm9ecFiHLjeb4SmG4ZTdG +eywI/VvOLkUN18eV+ez7PrzcFMLSfrJt33967ACbWk8bhFkSVHaCOt8 tuCW/67Drf6ZhVsiWohnabxcNodbNfUa9f8rQfBN8Q9ahzbV8rcbabh 4YC2NVz55I3iPq63svZYyOcWOn/ads5yGmwSfo/GmwSh5vRRY3FxwbZGUbhx5StHrMqLfxp6FTgrJGMWxuBe9Lgae t+zAbju+IhCd9bey/cuR54REBFFtaQnhr6G70kbQz5jBX5BQl1nVBylki9uO4tpsHHu L87xBttmgpJD+NlD4DTdzLaIgoc0Pwa3aW2L92K00XrQRZII9V y1ubmkmDd+uf7a11c3W4a4i/L2KxcpeG0jlec59nw0UxtogrZgszxPx4uGIQeabJs9Ya1/brH3VAt8roKconR9tfmIPbiHSMtyGfWLY4GVm/9ttABwWGb+AW5RTVayk
ev5bjD7WCLsi1JaEEOUi1Rxcc3yDQ68qUvpncDlgvRezedJLKh Dio0vrZijTcRYVVQPz1ISaNdXUloQQGdMcI7h2qhahtiSEaIkO LqdqEWpLQohSaY4pyq3E+w9WhVBbEuKjwQ7cqkwhhBBCCCGEEE IIIYQQQgghhBBCCCGEEEIIIYQQQgghhBBCCCGEEM2Z/wO4B+RS04XfkAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg=="
/>

(I hope all this comes across, I am not entirely sure how to clip this
at a reasonable length.)

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
tee hee! it does i am afriad. but hey parallels doesnt suck, (if it
updated without a hitch it would be nice)

May 12 '07 #15

P: n/a
ASM
-Lost a écrit :
ASM wrote:
>>
I would prefer to do everything in JS.

My friend, I seriously doubt this will happen. Even though I have seen
some neat image creation methods in JavaScript, I doubt very much binary
interaction can go on. I would love to be proved wrong on this one though.
OK.

I've played with this data:type-mine :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.mori...l_to_xls.shtml
tested successfully in FF,
Opera has a secutity or sthg to abort,
iCab wants to download the data ...
Safari donwloaded an Excel file, this file opens correctly in Excel.

Don't know if that could be very usefull ... :-/
Try this one in a browser that reads it:
TOO COOL ! ! !
works fine with my FF 2, Safari 1.3, Opera 9, iCab 3,
and *even with my old NC 4.5* ! ! !

No french translation with mouseover ? :-)

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
May 12 '07 #16

P: n/a
ASM wrote:
-Lost a écrit :
>ASM wrote:
>>>
I would prefer to do everything in JS.

My friend, I seriously doubt this will happen. Even though I have
seen some neat image creation methods in JavaScript, I doubt very much
binary interaction can go on. I would love to be proved wrong on this
one though.

OK.

I've played with this data:type-mine :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.mori...l_to_xls.shtml
tested successfully in FF,
Opera has a secutity or sthg to abort,
iCab wants to download the data ...
Safari donwloaded an Excel file, this file opens correctly in Excel.

Don't know if that could be very usefull ... :-/
In Opera 9.10 on Windows XP SP2, all I get is your error about it being
Internet Explorer.

You test this way:

if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
// your error

But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.

Was that on purpose?
>Try this one in a browser that reads it:

TOO COOL ! ! !
works fine with my FF 2, Safari 1.3, Opera 9, iCab 3,
and *even with my old NC 4.5* ! ! !

No french translation with mouseover ? :-)
Sorry, no! I don't know how to say "it sucks" in French.

if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 12 '07 #17

P: n/a
-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 4:32 PM:
ASM wrote:
>-Lost a écrit :
>>ASM wrote:

I would prefer to do everything in JS.

My friend, I seriously doubt this will happen. Even though I have
seen some neat image creation methods in JavaScript, I doubt very
much binary interaction can go on. I would love to be proved wrong
on this one though.

OK.

I've played with this data:type-mine :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.mori...l_to_xls.shtml
tested successfully in FF,
Opera has a secutity or sthg to abort,
iCab wants to download the data ...
Safari donwloaded an Excel file, this file opens correctly in Excel.

Don't know if that could be very usefull ... :-/

In Opera 9.10 on Windows XP SP2, all I get is your error about it being
Internet Explorer.

You test this way:

if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
// your error

But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.

Was that on purpose?
Doubtfully. It probably comes from the belief that the only browser that
supports both is IE and that is wrong. A better test, in that code,
would be if(!IE) as, right now, IE is the only one that supports the
conditional compilation code.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 12 '07 #18

P: n/a
ASM
-Lost a écrit :
ASM wrote:
>-Lost a écrit :
>>ASM wrote:

I've played with this data:type-mine :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.mori...l_to_xls.shtml
In Opera 9.10 on Windows XP SP2, all I get is your error about it being
Internet Explorer.

You test this way:

if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
// your error

But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.
I know.
Was that on purpose?
because Opera did cry about I don't know what
and because anyway I don't like Opera
hop! outside !
but you can see here what he does with my script :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.mori...html_to_xls_op

Tiens ?
is was not simple to fix, but this time that works with my Opera 9
(easiest if Excel is opened first)
if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }
:-)

if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');
--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
May 12 '07 #19

P: n/a
ASM
Randy Webb a écrit :
-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 4:32 PM:
>>
You test this way:

if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
// your error

But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.

Was that on purpose?

Doubtfully. It probably comes from the belief that the only browser that
supports both is IE and that is wrong.
Not at all ! I know Opera as iCab accept document.all
A better test, in that code would be if(!IE)
Yes I did test it (1st line in demo's JS) but my Opera played me a "tour
de cochon" so I left it.
--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
May 12 '07 #20

P: n/a
ASM wrote:
-Lost a écrit :
>ASM wrote:
>>-Lost a écrit :
ASM wrote:

I've played with this data:type-mine :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.mori...l_to_xls.shtml
>In Opera 9.10 on Windows XP SP2, all I get is your error about it
being Internet Explorer.

You test this way:

if(document.getElementById && !document.all)
// your error

But Opera supports document.getElementById and document.all.

I know.
>Was that on purpose?

because Opera did cry about I don't know what
and because anyway I don't like Opera
hop! outside !
but you can see here what he does with my script :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.mori...html_to_xls_op

Tiens ?
is was not simple to fix, but this time that works with my Opera 9
(easiest if Excel is opened first)
I don't even have Excel on this machine and it works just fine
(OpenOffice.org).
>if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }

:-)

if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');
I would agree with that, except Randy would beat me (maybe Jim too?).
And quite frankly, I don't have any good answer as to why I think all
Internet Explorer related stuff is crud. ;)

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 12 '07 #21

P: n/a
-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 7:47 PM:
ASM wrote:
>-Lost a écrit :
>>if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }

:-)

if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');

I would agree with that, except Randy would beat me (maybe Jim too?).
Why would I beat you for your opinion? I happen to think *all* browsers
are "garbage". Try viewing how much memory Opera and Firefox consume on
a PC.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 13 '07 #22

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:
-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 7:47 PM:
>ASM wrote:
>>-Lost a écrit :
if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }

:-)

if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');

I would agree with that, except Randy would beat me (maybe Jim too?).

Why would I beat you for your opinion? I happen to think *all* browsers
are "garbage". Try viewing how much memory Opera and Firefox consume on
a PC.
Well, I knew you were particularly knowledgeable in the Internet
Explorer/WSH/CScript area. So I thought it wise not to say something I
could not rightly justify.

And oh yeah, I *totally* feel you on the memory thing. Opera loads like
its dying; Firefox (even with Firefox Preloader) loads after a few seconds.

To be honest... I load Opera long enough to view a JavaScript or CSS
example and then I kill it.

I remember when my Firefox install was totally fresh and clean (and
every time I test new plug ins in a clean profile), it loaded and ran
like lightning. Add a few extensions and that goes out the window.

I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 13 '07 #23

P: n/a
ASM
-Lost a écrit :
ASM wrote:
>you can see here what does Opera with my script :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.mori...html_to_xls_op
that works with my Opera 9
(easiest if Excel is opened first)

I don't even have Excel on this machine and it works just fine
(OpenOffice.org).
Great !
On a Mac ? Version ?
Did you launch Oo.o before ?

On my Mac (MDD/1.25Mhz) this appli needs a very long time to open
(think it works with X11)
and I don't know how to get it "by default".
--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
May 13 '07 #24

P: n/a
ASM
Randy Webb a écrit :
>
I happen to think *all* browsers are "garbage".
Try viewing how much memory Opera and Firefox consume on a PC.
Personally I hate Windows (and he hates me too !).

On my Mac FF love to use all CPU, specially when some JS is called.
About memory ... seems a space is attributed and FF does with that.

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
May 13 '07 #25

P: n/a
ASM
-Lost a écrit :
>
I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.
We can do a parallel with Mac OS X : Safari and Mail load quickly
during FF as Th takes their time to appear.

The first are built to really work with the system, the others are made
by a crowd of independent programmers and to run everywhere, I suppose
they can meet some difficulties.

About IE I've heard of memory lacks ... no ?

--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
May 13 '07 #26

P: n/a
ASM said the following on 5/13/2007 5:25 AM:
-Lost a écrit :
>>
I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.

We can do a parallel with Mac OS X : Safari and Mail load quickly
during FF as Th takes their time to appear.

The first are built to really work with the system, the others are made
by a crowd of independent programmers and to run everywhere, I suppose
they can meet some difficulties.
That is precisely the difference. With one small difference. IE isn't
built to work "with the system", it is part of the system (OS).
About IE I've heard of memory lacks ... no ?
Yes, IE has memory leaks when it comes to closures. I assume lacks was a
typo?

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 13 '07 #27

P: n/a
-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 11:33 PM:
Randy Webb wrote:
>-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 7:47 PM:
>>ASM wrote:
-Lost a écrit :
if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }

:-)

if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');

I would agree with that, except Randy would beat me (maybe Jim too?).

Why would I beat you for your opinion? I happen to think *all*
browsers are "garbage". Try viewing how much memory Opera and Firefox
consume on a PC.

Well, I knew you were particularly knowledgeable in the Internet
Explorer/WSH/CScript area. So I thought it wise not to say something I
could not rightly justify.
Whether it is IE, Firefox, Opera or any other browser, it is typically
the unjustified "I Hate browserX" that gets me going. It is also
typically the "I hate M$" and the likes where the main reason people say
it is to be "part of the crowd" or "to be cool" that gets me. If people
don't like a browser, and have a reason, then so be it. I have a list as
long as my arm of problems with IE. The list is about the same length
with FF though.
And oh yeah, I *totally* feel you on the memory thing. Opera loads like
its dying; Firefox (even with Firefox Preloader) loads after a few seconds.
I don't use the Preloader as I don't care to have it half loaded (or
more) every time I boot the PC if I have no plans to use it. It is a
trade off in load time I choose to suffer with :)
I remember when my Firefox install was totally fresh and clean (and
every time I test new plug ins in a clean profile), it loaded and ran
like lightning. Add a few extensions and that goes out the window.
Load FF clean, then open IE and FF and view the Task Manager on them
both. There is a reason why FF uses more memory in that view and it can
never be made to operate as low as IE. And it is simply because IE is
part of the OS and uses other components whereas FF has to be stand
alone. IE has its own built in preloader - the OS.

Sidenote: If anybody wants to prove me wrong about IE, they are welcome
to explain to me how to uninstall IE on Windows, have Windows continue
to work, without re-installing IE :-)
I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.
See above :)

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 13 '07 #28

P: n/a
ASM
Randy Webb a écrit :
ASM said the following on 5/13/2007 5:25 AM:
>The first are built to really work with the system, the others are
made by a crowd of independent programmers and to run everywhere, I
suppose they can meet some difficulties.

That is precisely the difference. With one small difference. IE isn't
built to work "with the system", it is part of the system (OS).
Yeap, one more reason for me to hate Windows.
>About IE I've heard of memory lacks ... no ?

Yes, IE has memory leaks when it comes to closures. I assume lacks was a
typo?
Oui :-)
--
Stephane Moriaux et son (moins) vieux Mac déjà dépassé
Stephane Moriaux and his (less) old Mac already out of date
May 13 '07 #29

P: n/a
ASM wrote:
-Lost a écrit :
>ASM wrote:
>>you can see here what does Opera with my script :
http://perso.orange.fr/stephane.mori...html_to_xls_op
that works with my Opera 9
(easiest if Excel is opened first)

I don't even have Excel on this machine and it works just fine
(OpenOffice.org).

Great !
On a Mac ? Version ?
No sir. I barely use my iMac anymore. I use it mainly to stay somewhat
familiarized with FreeBSD.
Did you launch Oo.o before ?
But no, I did not open it first. I saved it as "default.xls" in Opera
and "random garbage.xls" in Firefox.

Then opened it with OO.o.

If you would like me to check on my very, VERY old iMac, I will though.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 14 '07 #30

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:
-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 11:33 PM:
>Randy Webb wrote:
>>-Lost said the following on 5/12/2007 7:47 PM:
ASM wrote:
-Lost a écrit :
>if (Mac.Internet_Explorer == 'merdeux') { alert('Oui!'); }
>
:-)
>
if(any.Internet_Explorer) { alert('garbage');

I would agree with that, except Randy would beat me (maybe Jim too?).

Why would I beat you for your opinion? I happen to think *all*
browsers are "garbage". Try viewing how much memory Opera and Firefox
consume on a PC.

Well, I knew you were particularly knowledgeable in the Internet
Explorer/WSH/CScript area. So I thought it wise not to say something
I could not rightly justify.

Whether it is IE, Firefox, Opera or any other browser, it is typically
the unjustified "I Hate browserX" that gets me going. It is also
typically the "I hate M$" and the likes where the main reason people say
it is to be "part of the crowd" or "to be cool" that gets me. If people
don't like a browser, and have a reason, then so be it. I have a list as
long as my arm of problems with IE. The list is about the same length
with FF though.
>And oh yeah, I *totally* feel you on the memory thing. Opera loads
like its dying; Firefox (even with Firefox Preloader) loads after a
few seconds.

I don't use the Preloader as I don't care to have it half loaded (or
more) every time I boot the PC if I have no plans to use it. It is a
trade off in load time I choose to suffer with :)
>I remember when my Firefox install was totally fresh and clean (and
every time I test new plug ins in a clean profile), it loaded and ran
like lightning. Add a few extensions and that goes out the window.

Load FF clean, then open IE and FF and view the Task Manager on them
both. There is a reason why FF uses more memory in that view and it can
never be made to operate as low as IE. And it is simply because IE is
part of the OS and uses other components whereas FF has to be stand
alone. IE has its own built in preloader - the OS.
Dear God. That was ridiculous!

Internet Explorer 6: 13.5 Megabytes of Physical Memory.
Firefox 1.5.0.11: 189.5 Megabytes of Physical Memory.
Opera 9.10 build 8679: 16.7 Megabytes of Physical Memory.

Opera surprised the hell out of me!

I did actually know that Internet Explorer was integrated into the
Operating System. I believe I learned this in my Visual Basic days.
Come to think of it, I still have Visual Basic 6 Enterprise installed.

I haven't VB'd in aaaaaages.
Sidenote: If anybody wants to prove me wrong about IE, they are welcome
to explain to me how to uninstall IE on Windows, have Windows continue
to work, without re-installing IE :-)
Um... I can remove Internet Explorer safely. As long as you allow that
to mean revert to an older version. ;)

Seriously though, it can't be done. (Which you already knew. ;))
>I must say, that is the primary thing I miss most about Internet
Explorer and Outlook Express. They load damn fast and always have.

See above :)
--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 14 '07 #31

P: n/a
VK
On May 13, 8:21 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
Whether it is IE, Firefox, Opera or any other browser, it is typically
the unjustified "I Hate browserX" that gets me going. It is also
typically the "I hate M$" and the likes where the main reason people say
it is to be "part of the crowd" or "to be cool" that gets me. If people
don't like a browser, and have a reason, then so be it. I have a list as
long as my arm of problems with IE. The list is about the same length
with FF though.
"I hate Micro$oft IE" gave raise to Firefox and it also preserved
Opera on the bare minimum existence level in the after Browser Wars
era. With fully practical approach we would have Windows XP / M
Office / IE 7 right now and nothing else at all - with minor updates
released by Microsoft once in 6-8 years. All OS, office packages and
browsers have their defaults, so what the point then to fight for
alternative failures? ;-)

A bit of semi-unexplainable "hate" is crucial for innovations. In
marketing it is called more nicely though: "a brand wearing" . Even if
the old stuff is still pretty good, people want an update - any update
- a few years later. I do fully agree that Microsoft is not a
"residence evil" of any kind. People just don't like reach winners;
also defeating or at least insulting someone big and strong makes you
feel big and strong yourself. From the other side if the Battle of the
4th versions would go other way, we might be discussing right now the
"ugliness of Net$cape solutions and Microsoft fight for
standards". :-)
And oh yeah, I *totally* feel you on the memory thing. Opera loads like
its dying; Firefox (even with Firefox Preloader) loads after a few seconds.

I don't use the Preloader as I don't care to have it half loaded (or
more) every time I boot the PC if I have no plans to use it. It is a
trade off in load time I choose to suffer with :)
I remember when my Firefox install was totally fresh and clean (and
every time I test new plug ins in a clean profile), it loaded and ran
like lightning. Add a few extensions and that goes out the window.

Load FF clean, then open IE and FF and view the Task Manager on them
both. There is a reason why FF uses more memory in that view and it can
never be made to operate as low as IE. And it is simply because IE is
part of the OS and uses other components whereas FF has to be stand
alone. IE has its own built in preloader - the OS.

Sidenote: If anybody wants to prove me wrong about IE, they are welcome
to explain to me how to uninstall IE on Windows, have Windows continue
to work, without re-installing IE :-)
There is a number of "IE removal" programs. The main pitfall is that
the Microsoft site is specially crafted for IE. The biggest catch is
that Windows Update pages are working with IE _only_ Any other browser
- even with User-Agent string spooffed - gets banned. This is the
primary problem to resolve by alternative browser producers by any
mean: either by legal enforcement (preferable) or by plugin+spoofing
means (if the first fails).

P.S. For MacOS users there is Camino (www.caminobrowser.org) - this is
Gecko natively integrated with MacOS. This way their complains of slow
loading Firefox or Opera do not reach my heart; as well as any
complains on "my Safary doesn't work here or there". Sadomasochistic
intentions are too personal IMO to keep sharing it with the
public. :-)

P.P.S. Having an awesome stay in Europe this year.
May 14 '07 #32

P: n/a
VK said the following on 5/14/2007 4:37 AM:
On May 13, 8:21 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>Whether it is IE, Firefox, Opera or any other browser, it is typically
the unjustified "I Hate browserX" that gets me going. It is also
typically the "I hate M$" and the likes where the main reason people say
it is to be "part of the crowd" or "to be cool" that gets me. If people
don't like a browser, and have a reason, then so be it. I have a list as
long as my arm of problems with IE. The list is about the same length
with FF though.

"I hate Micro$oft IE"
If anything you said was worth replying to I would. But, as usual, it isn't.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 17 '07 #33

P: n/a
VK
"I hate Micro$oft IE"
>
If anything you said was worth replying to I would. But, as usual, it isn't.
You did reply though - otherwise what am I replying to? ;-)

P.S. As the person directly connected with the FAQ maintenance process
- I would expect more of care in working with quotes. The part you
have quoted is - in full -

"I hate Micro$oft IE" gave raise to Firefox and it also preserved
Opera on the bare minimum existence level in the after Browser Wars
era.
<snip>

The quotes around and the context imply that I am not stating my (like
" I ") personal opinion but using an old and rather known slogan
summarizing a set of trends touched in this thread.
>From the "worthiness" point of view you might express - at least - our
personal opinion of the practice when the security and up-to-date
state of a fully paid OS is being set by OS producer into a strict
dependence of a particular browser installed on the said OS. You might
at least say like "it sucks" or "it is OS producer's holly right" or
anything. In front of the approaching fight Episode Three each opinion
- especially yours - is worthy.


May 17 '07 #34

P: n/a
VK said the following on 5/17/2007 1:01 PM:
>>"I hate Micro$oft IE"
If anything you said was worth replying to I would. But, as usual, it isn't.

You did reply though - otherwise what am I replying to? ;-)
I replied to your post, not anything you wrote/said. There is a difference.
P.S. As the person directly connected with the FAQ maintenance process
- I would expect more of care in working with quotes. The part you
have quoted is - in full -
I am well aware of the "FAQ maintenance process" but what that has to do
with quoting or not quoting eludes me. Especially since it didn't matter
what I quoted. I could have snipped everything you wrote and simply put:

<snipped what VK rambled>

And it would have had the same effect for me.
"I hate Micro$oft IE" gave raise to Firefox and it also preserved
Opera on the bare minimum existence level in the after Browser Wars
era.
The "I hate Microsoft" is not what gave rise to Firefox. What gave rise
to Mozilla was the direct result of the collapse of Netscape (partially
at the hands of AOL) and the resulting lack of a choice for a browser.
Nothing to do with whether you hated MS or not, but a lack of choice and
people want a choice, even if they have to create themselves.
<snip>

The quotes around and the context imply that I am not stating my (like
" I ") personal opinion but using an old and rather known slogan
summarizing a set of trends touched in this thread.
You are, incorrectly, assuming that I even thought that was an original
idea of yours.
From the "worthiness" point of view you might express - at least - our
personal opinion of the practice when the security and up-to-date
state of a fully paid OS is being set by OS producer into a strict
dependence of a particular browser installed on the said OS. You might
at least say like "it sucks" or "it is OS producer's holly right" or
anything. In front of the approaching fight Episode Three each opinion
- especially yours - is worthy.
Why MS decided to make the Windows Updates IE specific is anybody's
guess - short of a declaration from MS - but an educated guess would be
simple. The Update verifies that you are running an authenticate version
of Windows and not a pirated version. To do that it uses an ActiveX
component that is IE specific. So, in order to accomplish the
authentication then it had to be made to be IE specific. Besides, if you
ran a software company would you endeavor to ensure that your update
procedure to update your own software would be compatible with someone
elses software? I think not.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 18 '07 #35

P: n/a
VK
On May 18, 4:20 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
I could have snipped everything you wrote and simply put:

<snipped what VK rambled>

And it would have had the same effect for me.
Yeah... Nothing new under these skies.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....fa73a854d310fa
Why MS decided to make the Windows Updates IE specific is anybody's
guess - short of a declaration from MS - but an educated guess would be
simple. The Update verifies that you are running an authenticate version
of Windows and not a pirated version. To do that it uses an ActiveX
component that is IE specific. So, in order to accomplish the
authentication then it had to be made to be IE specific. Besides, if you
ran a software company would you endeavor to ensure that your update
procedure to update your own software would be compatible with someone
elses software? I think not.
Windows Update doesn't operate with JScript neither it depends on some
particular IE HTML/DOM/JScript features. It is a C++ program with full
system access. IE is used only to trig the execution of this program
over ActiveX mechanics. It is by - all means - an equivalent of
InstantShield Update Manager. The only difference is that the ability
to launch this manager is artificially attached to the presence of a
particular browser.

IMO the impact of this marketing cheat code is still severely under-
counted. It is very simple to make say Firefox your default browser
during the installation. But on the first attempt to visit Windows
Update one will get the message that could be translated from the
corporate to the conventional English as "get off whatever crap you
dared to install, sucka, and use what you've been told to use". For
non-Windows users here is the exact screenshot:
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif

Given the amount of Windows Update links filling different Windows and
Windows applications menu the desired effect will be reached very
soon:
1) User will realize that she needs IE shortcut handy around
2) She will get an impression that her Windows became semi-brocken /
malfunctioning after having installed any other browser than IE
3) IE will be brought back as the default browser.

Simple, nasty, effective - Microsoft marketing managers always were
among the best money can buy.

May 19 '07 #36

P: n/a
VK said the following on 5/19/2007 4:04 AM:
On May 18, 4:20 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>I could have snipped everything you wrote and simply put:

<snipped what VK rambled>

And it would have had the same effect for me.

Yeah... Nothing new under these skies.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....fa73a854d310fa
Not sure what you think that has to do with this thread but it is your
choice.
>Why MS decided to make the Windows Updates IE specific is anybody's
guess - short of a declaration from MS - but an educated guess would be
simple. The Update verifies that you are running an authenticate version
of Windows and not a pirated version. To do that it uses an ActiveX
component that is IE specific. So, in order to accomplish the
authentication then it had to be made to be IE specific. Besides, if you
ran a software company would you endeavor to ensure that your update
procedure to update your own software would be compatible with someone
elses software? I think not.

Windows Update doesn't operate with JScript neither it depends on some
particular IE HTML/DOM/JScript features.
Try testing it with JScript disabled and you will soon discover that
JScript enabled is *mandatory* for a manual update session (never tested
it with Auto Updates though).
IMO the impact of this marketing cheat code is still severely under-
counted. It is very simple to make say Firefox your default browser
during the installation. But on the first attempt to visit Windows
Update one will get the message that could be translated from the
corporate to the conventional English as "get off whatever crap you
dared to install, sucka, and use what you've been told to use". For
non-Windows users here is the exact screenshot:
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
That pictures shows how to Update Windows without using a browser so it
only blows a hole in the theory that MS is trying to force IE down your
throat when you can update Windows without using IE.
Given the amount of Windows Update links filling different Windows and
Windows applications menu the desired effect will be reached very
soon:
1) User will realize that she needs IE shortcut handy around
Or use the Automatic Updates.
2) She will get an impression that her Windows became semi-brocken /
malfunctioning after having installed any other browser than IE
Or use the Automatic Updates.
3) IE will be brought back as the default browser.
Or use the Automatic Updates.
Simple, nasty, effective - Microsoft marketing managers always were
among the best money can buy.
Only in your mind VK, only in your mind.

See? I *can* be nice sometimes.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 19 '07 #37

P: n/a
VK
On May 19, 1:15 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
Windows Update doesn't operate with JScript neither it depends on some
particular IE HTML/DOM/JScript features.

Try testing it with JScript disabled and you will soon discover that
JScript enabled is *mandatory* for a manual update session (never tested
it with Auto Updates though).
Right, Windows Update page requires JScript enabled atop of
everything. I meant to say that the Windows Update functionality
doesn't depend on some particular Javascript / DOM / HTML capability
that would be missing and not replaceable in other UAs. There is no
ActiveX to launch system applications - but there are other ways do to
it. It is still the main question why anyone would need to visit an
HTML page just to launch an application from your own hard drive?
Windows validation and updates check is being made by that
application, not by some code on the said HTML page.
For
non-Windows users here is the exact screenshot:
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
That pictures shows how to Update Windows without using a browser so it
only blows a hole in the theory that MS is trying to force IE down your
throat when you can update Windows without using IE.
You forget a small but nasty fact that Auto Update will check for only
high priority system updates. For instance right now my Auto Update is
all green and happy. But visiting the update page shows a number of
categories for my system which I will be missing without IE:
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu2.gif
The list is not as impressive as I possibly wanted because I have
already installed the majority of proposed updates - but you've got
the catch I guess.

Also "Windows Update", "Check for updates" and similar provided in
many if not all of Microsoft products. It is very natural for users to
click something like
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu3.gif
so to get the infamous
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
and I remain on my opinion from the first post in this branch of the
thread.
May 19 '07 #38

P: n/a
VK said the following on 5/19/2007 6:14 AM:
On May 19, 1:15 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>>Windows Update doesn't operate with JScript neither it depends on some
particular IE HTML/DOM/JScript features.
Try testing it with JScript disabled and you will soon discover that
JScript enabled is *mandatory* for a manual update session (never tested
it with Auto Updates though).

Right, Windows Update page requires JScript enabled atop of
everything. I meant to say that the Windows Update functionality
doesn't depend on some particular Javascript / DOM / HTML capability
that would be missing and not replaceable in other UAs. There is no
ActiveX to launch system applications - but there are other ways do to
it. It is still the main question why anyone would need to visit an
HTML page just to launch an application from your own hard drive?
Windows validation and updates check is being made by that
application, not by some code on the said HTML page.
Until today, doing an experiment, I might have agreed with you. The
reason I don't? I just did a Windows Update, manually, using Firefox2.0
and it went off without a hitch. Not a one. It simply asked me if I
wanted to download the files, I said yes, then it let me install them.
>>For
non-Windows users here is the exact screenshot:
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
>That pictures shows how to Update Windows without using a browser so it
only blows a hole in the theory that MS is trying to force IE down your
throat when you can update Windows without using IE.

You forget a small but nasty fact that Auto Update will check for only
high priority system updates. For instance right now my Auto Update is
all green and happy. But visiting the update page shows a number of
categories for my system which I will be missing without IE:
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu2.gif
That is what prompted me to do a manual Update. I honestly wasn't aware
that there was a difference but there is. So I used FF thinking I could
confirm your image but I didn't get that result, I got the Updates.
The list is not as impressive as I possibly wanted because I have
already installed the majority of proposed updates - but you've got
the catch I guess.
Yes, and one I wasn't aware of. Thanks.
Also "Windows Update", "Check for updates" and similar provided in
many if not all of Microsoft products. It is very natural for users to
click something like
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu3.gif
so to get the infamous
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
and I remain on my opinion from the first post in this branch of the
thread.
The "Check for Updates" is not unique to MS products though.

Firefox has one in the Help Menu.
Thunderbird has one in the Help Menu.
Opera 9 has one in the Help Menu.

I think you get the picture :)

To blame MS for doing what most other software manufacturers are doing
is hypocritical. "Firefox and Opera can do it, it is ok, but if MS does
it then it is wrong".

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 19 '07 #39

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:
Until today, doing an experiment, I might have agreed with you. The
reason I don't? I just did a Windows Update, manually, using Firefox2.0
and it went off without a hitch. Not a one. It simply asked me if I
wanted to download the files, I said yes, then it let me install them.
By which URL did you get to the manual updates?

I remember I used to use:

http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.co...en/default.asp

Which now leads me back to the, "Sorry, you must use Internet Explorer"
page. OK, so I click http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=10678 to go
to the "use another browser, visit here" link.

That leads to the *entire* Microsoft Download Center. So anyway, I got
a wee bit overwhelmed/-Lost. ;)

Thanks.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 20 '07 #40

P: n/a
-Lost said the following on 5/19/2007 9:18 PM:
Randy Webb wrote:
>Until today, doing an experiment, I might have agreed with you. The
reason I don't? I just did a Windows Update, manually, using
Firefox2.0 and it went off without a hitch. Not a one. It simply asked
me if I wanted to download the files, I said yes, then it let me
install them.

By which URL did you get to the manual updates?

I remember I used to use:

http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.co...en/default.asp
http://update.microsoft.com/microsof....aspx?ln=en-us

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 20 '07 #41

P: n/a
VK
By which URL did you get to the manual updates?
http://update.microsoft.com/microsof....aspx?ln=en-us
That auto-forwards you to
http://www.update.microsoft.com/wind...&&thankspage=5
which is all the same screen as
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif

As I said, one cannot use any other browser but IE for Windows Update.

Just in case my system is:
Windows XP SP2
Firefox 2.0.3
User-Agent string left default as:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/
20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3
May 20 '07 #42

P: n/a
VK said the following on 5/20/2007 4:49 AM:
>>By which URL did you get to the manual updates?
>http://update.microsoft.com/microsof....aspx?ln=en-us

That auto-forwards you to
It may auto-forward you but it did not auto forward me.
http://www.update.microsoft.com/wind...&&thankspage=5
which is all the same screen as
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif
Not for me.
As I said, one cannot use any other browser but IE for Windows Update.
And, as usual, you are wrong as I personally updated my Windows with
Firefox.

Just let me know what kind of screenshot you want of Firefox.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 20 '07 #43

P: n/a
VK
On May 20, 8:22 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>http://update.microsoft.com/microsof....aspx?ln=en-us
That auto-forwards you to

It may auto-forward you but it did not auto forward me.
Your Windows version and Firefox version please? Also the chosen mode
for Auto Update in the Control Panel? Given that the auto-forward is
made sever side and secured by client-side scripting, either you are
wrong in your observations or you've found by occasion some way to use
Firefox for Windows Update.
Just let me know what kind of screenshot you want of Firefox.
The one like at http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu2.gif but
for Firefox.

May 20 '07 #44

P: n/a
VK said the following on 5/20/2007 1:17 PM:
On May 20, 8:22 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>>>http://update.microsoft.com/microsof....aspx?ln=en-us
That auto-forwards you to
It may auto-forward you but it did not auto forward me.

Your Windows version and Firefox version please?
XP Version5.1 Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.070227-2254: Service Pack 2
As reported by the Help>About Windows in the Control Panel.
FF 2.0.0.3
Also the chosen mode for Auto Update in the Control Panel?
Not that I see where it matters if it you say it is all done server
side, but it is set to Auto Update.
Given that the auto-forward is made sever side and secured by
client-side scripting, either you are wrong in your observations
Given that I tested it three times, successfully, I will leave it to you
to determine who is right or wrong in the observations.
or you've found by occasion some way to use Firefox for Windows Update.
You are finally realizing that?
>Just let me know what kind of screenshot you want of Firefox.

The one like at http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu2.gif but
for Firefox.
I emailed the image to you. The AOL server isn't letting me upload
anything and I don't want it on my live server. If you get it, upload it
for me and post a URL.

P.S. I figured out how it worked with Firefox. Can anybody else?

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 20 '07 #45

P: n/a
VK
On May 20, 10:01 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
I emailed the image to you. The AOL server isn't letting me upload
anything and I don't want it on my live server. If you get it, upload it
for me and post a URL.
Thanks. Well, the fact of the phenomenon must be accepted I guess:

http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu4.jpg
P.S. I figured out how it worked with Firefox. Can anybody else?
Humbly but impatiently awaiting for some enlightening.
May 20 '07 #46

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:
-Lost said the following on 5/19/2007 9:18 PM:
>Randy Webb wrote:
>>Until today, doing an experiment, I might have agreed with you. The
reason I don't? I just did a Windows Update, manually, using
Firefox2.0 and it went off without a hitch. Not a one. It simply
asked me if I wanted to download the files, I said yes, then it let
me install them.

By which URL did you get to the manual updates?

I remember I used to use:

http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.co...en/default.asp

http://update.microsoft.com/microsof....aspx?ln=en-us
I was not totally sure if I should respond below you and VK, so I will
post the length of my post here.

1. In Firefox 1.5.0.11, Windows XP SP2, using the above link takes me
to the wu4.gif (your screen shot Randy). However, it says I have to add
a site to my trusted blah blah. So, I allowed JavaScript... *this* then
forwards me to the URL
http://www.update.microsoft.com/wind...&&thankspage=5

2. I tried turning Windows Update to Auto and trying again. Aside from
locking Firefox up a few times, nothing changed. I can see the Catalog
at first, but get a message that I need to add microsoft to trusted
zones. If I allow JavaScript anywhere, I get "need Internet Explorer."

Any other relevant information I should include?

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 20 '07 #47

P: n/a
VK said the following on 5/20/2007 2:32 PM:
On May 20, 10:01 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>I emailed the image to you. The AOL server isn't letting me upload
anything and I don't want it on my live server. If you get it, upload it
for me and post a URL.

Thanks. Well, the fact of the phenomenon must be accepted I guess:

http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu4.jpg
>P.S. I figured out how it worked with Firefox. Can anybody else?

Humbly but impatiently awaiting for some enlightening.
It took me awhile to figure it out. About half the night in fact. The
reason it works, for me, in Firefox is because I have an extension for
Firefox called IETab and within the Filter settings for it is has the MS
Update sites listed. When it encounters one of those sites it
automatically invokes the IETab. What the IETab does is allow you to
invoke the IE Engine while running Firefox. It's main use is to be able
to test in IE without having to open IE. So, while it is technically
"running in Firefox", it isn't using the Firefox engine.

Testing just now, when I disable the filters it goes the same route
everybody else gets which confirmed my beliefs.

I would guess it would also work in Netscape 8 since it also can use the
IE Engine.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
May 20 '07 #48

P: n/a
VK wrote:
>>By which URL did you get to the manual updates?
>http://update.microsoft.com/microsof....aspx?ln=en-us

That auto-forwards you to
http://www.update.microsoft.com/wind...&&thankspage=5
which is all the same screen as
http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu.gif

As I said, one cannot use any other browser but IE for Windows Update.
Granted, I cannot seem to get it to work with a standalone version of
Firefox, but the phenomenon remains intact nonetheless. In fact, a
simple Google search shows us that it is possible to update Windows
without ActiveX and without bothering with the actual Windows Update
service as well.

So, yes, it is possible to update with browsers other than Internet
Explorer.

Offhand, I know of only one way to update Windows without technically
needing to go to Windows Update. I believe the process still requires
Windows Update intrinsically though.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 20 '07 #49

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:
VK said the following on 5/20/2007 2:32 PM:
>On May 20, 10:01 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>>I emailed the image to you. The AOL server isn't letting me upload
anything and I don't want it on my live server. If you get it, upload it
for me and post a URL.

Thanks. Well, the fact of the phenomenon must be accepted I guess:

http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/tmp/wu4.jpg
>>P.S. I figured out how it worked with Firefox. Can anybody else?

Humbly but impatiently awaiting for some enlightening.

It took me awhile to figure it out. About half the night in fact. The
reason it works, for me, in Firefox is because I have an extension for
Firefox called IETab and within the Filter settings for it is has the MS
Update sites listed. When it encounters one of those sites it
automatically invokes the IETab. What the IETab does is allow you to
invoke the IE Engine while running Firefox. It's main use is to be able
to test in IE without having to open IE. So, while it is technically
"running in Firefox", it isn't using the Firefox engine.

Testing just now, when I disable the filters it goes the same route
everybody else gets which confirmed my beliefs.

I would guess it would also work in Netscape 8 since it also can use the
IE Engine.
Ah hah! I thought about it after I said I knew of only one method,
because actually I knew of several.

1. IETab
2. WindizUpdate
3. MBSA
4. Belarc

Also, you need 2 services running for it to work in Internet Explorer.

1. BITS
2. Automatic Updates (Suprising! Not...)

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.
May 20 '07 #50

60 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.