By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,677 Members | 1,076 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,677 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Javascript and Vista

P: n/a
Hello,
I'm lost.
Can some one go to the following site and click on the right-hand menu
option named, Geneology.
It is a Javascript link and will NOT do anything when my friend (who
is running Vista) clicks on it.

http://home.ptd.net/~ajs10

I'm not a Vista users and am not sure what I need to do to get it to
function under his Operating System.
Can you tell me if it functions for you Vista folks and, if so, what
settings I have tell my friend to make on his system (and or Browser -
IE7) to get it to work.
Thank you.
Jan 23 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
7 Replies


P: n/a
On Jan 23, 12:26 pm, Omicron <Omicron...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I'm lost.
Can some one go to the following site and click on the right-hand menu
option named, Geneology.
Sure.
It is a Javascript link and will NOT do anything when my friend (who
is running Vista) clicks on it.
Doesn't do anything for me either, I use Firefox with the NoScript add-
on. :-)

>
http://home.ptd.net/~ajs10

I'm not a Vista users and am not sure what I need to do to get it to
function under his Operating System.
Can you tell me if it functions for you Vista folks and, if so, what
settings I have tell my friend to make on his system (and or Browser -
IE7) to get it to work.
There are a number of reasons why it may not work, the obvious being
that javascript is disabled (IE calls it "active scripting" which bars
all scripts, not just javascript).

It may also be because you have HTML comment delimiters in your script
element. Browsers will tolerate an opening <!-- as the very first non-
whitespace characters in a script element, but not later.

But there is absolutely no reason to use them at all, particularly if
you think you are using XHTML. Remove *all* HTML comment delimiters
from your script. It is also a good idea to put all script resources
in an external file.

I'd also suggest that you change the link from:

<A HREF="javascript:Check()">Geneology</A></li>

to:

<a href="usefulPage.html" onclick="return Check();">Geneology</a>
The Check() function should probably always return false. Users with
javascript disabled will go to the usefulPage.html, which should have
advice that javascript must be enabled and maybe how to do it.

Incidentally, your DOCTYPE is XHTML 1.0 Strict, yet:

1. Your page isn't valid XHTML 1.0

2. You are serving it as text/HTML, which is just as well
given 1. above

3. IE doesn't understand XML, so even if you fix 1 and 2,
about 70% of visitors won't be able to user your site

--
Rob
Jan 23 '08 #2

P: n/a
On Jan 22, 10:06 pm, RobG <rg...@iinet.net.auwrote:
On Jan 23, 12:26 pm, Omicron <Omicron...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I'm lost.
Can some one go to the following site and click on the right-hand menu
option named, Geneology.

Sure.
It is a Javascript link and will NOT do anything when my friend (who
is running Vista) clicks on it.

Doesn't do anything for me either, I use Firefox with the NoScript add-
on. :-)
http://home.ptd.net/~ajs10
I'm not a Vista users and am not sure what I need to do to get it to
function under his Operating System.
Can you tell me if it functions for you Vista folks and, if so, what
settings I have tell my friend to make on his system (and or Browser -
IE7) to get it to work.

There are a number of reasons why it may not work, the obvious being
that javascript is disabled (IE calls it "active scripting" which bars
all scripts, not just javascript).

It may also be because you have HTML comment delimiters in your script
element. Browsers will tolerate an opening <!-- as the very first non-
whitespace characters in a script element, but not later.

But there is absolutely no reason to use them at all, particularly if
you think you are using XHTML. Remove *all* HTML comment delimiters
from your script. It is also a good idea to put all script resources
in an external file.

I'd also suggest that you change the link from:

<A HREF="javascript:Check()">Geneology</A></li>

to:

<a href="usefulPage.html" onclick="return Check();">Geneology</a>

The Check() function should probably always return false. Users with
javascript disabled will go to the usefulPage.html, which should have
advice that javascript must be enabled and maybe how to do it.

Incidentally, your DOCTYPE is XHTML 1.0 Strict, yet:

1. Your page isn't valid XHTML 1.0

2. You are serving it as text/HTML, which is just as well
given 1. above

3. IE doesn't understand XML, so even if you fix 1 and 2,
about 70% of visitors won't be able to user your site

--
Rob
Thanks Rob.
Lots of good suggestions.
I've gotten it to work by lowering the Security setting in IE7.
Basically set it up the way I've used XP for many years.
As for the code, well....yeah!
I threw it together but I should have known better than to use such a
mess for a test!
I've already cleaned it up some.
Thanks again.
Jan 23 '08 #3

P: n/a
RobG wrote:
I use Firefox with the NoScript add-on. :-)
Rob
Just curious .... Why ?

I'd never turn script off on a browser I use for my regular surfing, I
want to see the web how it's meant to be (seen by a major browser that
hasn't been crippled). Sure we all disable scripting as part of a QA
test suite, but not for our regular use.
Jan 23 '08 #4

P: n/a
On Jan 23, 6:27*pm, Stevo <ple...@spam-me.comwrote:
RobG wrote:
I use Firefox with the NoScript add-on. :-)
Rob

Just curious .... Why ?
I helps to cut down on the amount of annoying crap. I also use
Addblock and Flashblock, it makes the web a much nicer place to visit.

I'd never turn script off on a browser I use for my regular surfing, I
want to see the web how it's meant to be (seen by a major browser that
hasn't been crippled). Sure we all disable scripting as part of a QA
test suite, but not for our regular use.
NoScript lets me select which sites can run scripts - urchintracker,
googlesyndication et al are not allowed at all. I also think it's
good to keep up the number of browsers running sans scripting to
remind web developers not to make their sites totally dependent on
scripting.
--
Rob

Jan 23 '08 #5

P: n/a
RobG wrote:
On Jan 23, 6:27 pm, Stevo <ple...@spam-me.comwrote:
>RobG wrote:
>>I use Firefox with the NoScript add-on. :-)
Rob
Just curious .... Why ?

NoScript lets me select which sites can run scripts - urchintracker,
googlesyndication et al are not allowed at all. I also think it's
good to keep up the number of browsers running sans scripting to
remind web developers not to make their sites totally dependent on
scripting.
Makes sense. I think I might install it, although I'd set it to allow
scripting by default, and only disable it on specific sites.
Jan 23 '08 #6

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <fn*************@news.t-online.com>,
Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:41:50, Stevo <pl****@spam-me.composted:
>
So how is that opinion connected to my not wanting to publicly announce
my real name and real email address on a public searchable forum for
all spammers to see and add to their spam list? I already get enough
spam, don't we all, and see no reason to add to it.
On a technical group, you should be prepared to use your normal name,
the one you would expect to be introduced by in civil life.

You should also enable a normal person to E-mail you.

There is, contrary to the brutalist view, no need to put your own E-mail
address in a form convenient to spammers (though it's some while since
I've seen a significant amount of spam aimed at a recently-used Reply-To
address).

But any address that you publish should be one that you have a right, or
permission, to use, whether to receive mail or as a spam-dump.

You should not use any other address that might belong to anyone else,
currently or in the future; that is wildly inconsiderate, and contrary
to the policy of the better ISPs. Neither should you use a domain
without authority to do so; domain owners may not want to handle your
spam.

"spam-me.com" exists, though it is in need of renewal - therefore, even
if you have permission to use it, that may not last. You could consider
buying it.

Remember not to argue with the local sociological defective; it is a
waste of public resources. A single refutation suffices.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html-Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm: about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.
Jan 24 '08 #7

P: n/a
On Jan 25, 3:37 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
<quote>
Date: 1998/12/08 02:34:45
Copyright 1998Matt Curtin, All Rights Reserved
</quote>

Yeah, that is outdated.
Nonsense. The fundamental issues that were true then are true now.
Mechanisms for spam delivery have evolved quite a bit since then, as
have spam detection and management.

Munging, in fact, is what's outdated.

Jan 26 '08 #8

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.