By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,299 Members | 1,210 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,299 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Unknown runtime error

P: n/a
I have googled for '"Internet Explorer" "Unknown runtime error"' and not
found anything useful. I have the following (for simplicity of
presentation here):

<div><table><tr><th id="foo"></th></tr></table></div>

In my javascript I have two lines:

var titleObj = document.getElementById('foo');
titleObj.innerHTML = "Name is bar";

IE6 is throwing an "Unknown runtime error" at the second line.

What can I do about it?
Jun 27 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
21 Replies


P: n/a
Ugo
What can I do about it?

Mmmm, do you wait for onloading the page?
Jun 27 '08 #2

P: n/a
Ugo wrote:
>What can I do about it?

Mmmm, do you wait for onloading the page?
The page is already loaded. This occurs when clicking a button on the
page that brings up the div (making it visible, that is). This line is
part of that javascript that presents the box.
Jun 27 '08 #3

P: n/a
Ugo
>>What can I do about it?
>Mmmm, do you wait for onloading the page?
The page is already loaded. This occurs when clicking a button on the
page that brings up the div (making it visible, that is). This line is
part of that javascript that presents the box.
You add the text when the table is hidden? and then you make it visible?
If it is so, IE could get angry...
Jun 27 '08 #4

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <-5KdnXsg_YpthYLVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@gigane
ws.com>, Mon, 5 May 2008 10:25:28, sheldonlg <sheldonlg@?.?.invalid>
posted:
>
Thank you for your suggestion. When I made that change, all hell broke
loose in the rendering of the table. Investigating, I found that my
error had nothing to do with this problem. There was an <input
type="hidden"in the table. I had failed to close that with the "
/>". Apparently, Firefox was smart to enough to say "Dummy, you forgot
to close this so I will do it for you", and rendered the table as I
wanted it. When I fixed the error, IE also displayed properly and
without a JS error.
Restore the error, then see what W3's downloadable TIDY (used as a
checker) and also an on-line tester say about it. I predict that you
will then form the habit of using them.

<FAQENTRYSection 2.3.
Add something on the desirability of verifying HTML before worrying
about what the script seems to do; particularly before posting.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SonOfRFC1036)
Jun 27 '08 #5

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In comp.lang.javascript message <-5KdnXsg_YpthYLVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@gigane
ws.com>, Mon, 5 May 2008 10:25:28, sheldonlg <sheldonlg@?.?.invalid>
posted:
>Thank you for your suggestion. When I made that change, all hell broke
loose in the rendering of the table. Investigating, I found that my
error had nothing to do with this problem. There was an <input
type="hidden"in the table. I had failed to close that with the "
/>". Apparently, Firefox was smart to enough to say "Dummy, you forgot
to close this so I will do it for you", and rendered the table as I
wanted it. When I fixed the error, IE also displayed properly and
without a JS error.

Restore the error, then see what W3's downloadable TIDY (used as a
checker) and also an on-line tester say about it. I predict that you
will then form the habit of using them.

<FAQENTRYSection 2.3.
Add something on the desirability of verifying HTML before worrying
about what the script seems to do; particularly before posting.
I wish I could do that. However, if I do a "view source", all I see is
the template. This is on an AJAX foundation using php to write the
html. From what I have researched on the web, the validator can't be
used with php, let alone html that is written at run time via AJAX.

If I am wrong, them please enlighten me. I would love to check for
errors by validations. As it is, I found this by taking my code and
cutting and pasting into a dreamweaver window and then manually
indenting and examining it line by line. (I just indented the print
statements as I would have done for the tage).
Jun 27 '08 #6

P: n/a
On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:12:46 -0400, sheldonlg <sheldonlgwrote:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>In comp.lang.javascript message <-5KdnXsg_YpthYLVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@gigane
ws.com>, Mon, 5 May 2008 10:25:28, sheldonlg <sheldonlg@?.?.invalid>
posted:
>>Thank you for your suggestion. When I made that change, all hell broke
loose in the rendering of the table. Investigating, I found that my
error had nothing to do with this problem. There was an <input
type="hidden"in the table. I had failed to close that with the "
/>". Apparently, Firefox was smart to enough to say "Dummy, you forgot
to close this so I will do it for you", and rendered the table as I
wanted it. When I fixed the error, IE also displayed properly and
without a JS error.

Restore the error, then see what W3's downloadable TIDY (used as a
checker) and also an on-line tester say about it. I predict that you
will then form the habit of using them.

<FAQENTRYSection 2.3.
Add something on the desirability of verifying HTML before worrying
about what the script seems to do; particularly before posting.

I wish I could do that. However, if I do a "view source", all I see is
the template. This is on an AJAX foundation using php to write the
html. From what I have researched on the web, the validator can't be
used with php, let alone html that is written at run time via AJAX.

If I am wrong, them please enlighten me. I would love to check for
errors by validations. As it is, I found this by taking my code and
cutting and pasting into a dreamweaver window and then manually
indenting and examining it line by line. (I just indented the print
statements as I would have done for the tage).
Ever tried to use MS VS.NET for debugging JS? Try it, and you'll
never want to use anything else. Even the obsolete 7.0 (.NET FW 1.0)
that can be had for next to nothing does the job (or in case you don't
care about Bill Gates' profit, just eMule it). Firefox script
debugger next to it is like Hyundai next to BMW.

And to see dynamically built object html, try entering into IE address
bar javascript:alert(document.getElementById('some id').innerHTML);
Works with FF, too.

NNN

Jun 27 '08 #7

P: n/a
no****@nowhere.net wrote:
And to see dynamically built object html, try entering into IE address
bar javascript:alert(document.getElementById('some id').innerHTML);
Works with FF, too.
Thanks. That was [almost] great. The "almost" is because I can't cut
and paste it. If I could do the cut and paste, I could either (a)
format it nicely to see where I may have made a mistake or (b) put it
into a separate html file that I could then validate and have W3C do
that work for me. Is there a variant that would allow me to do that.

BTW, IE changes things slightly. It removes the quotes around things
like class="thisclass" whereas FF doesn't. However, the formatting in
IE is somewhat better in starting new lines.
Jun 27 '08 #8

P: n/a
no****@nowhere.net wrote:
Ever tried to use MS VS.NET for debugging JS? Try it, and you'll
never want to use anything else.
I have tried it, and I prefer the MS Script Debugger for JScript, for its
not being evaluation software that cannot be registered, and its comparably
small memory footprint. Never wanting to use anything else would be
nonsense anyway because MS VS.NET can only debug JScript, not JavaScript or
other ECMAScript implementations.
[...]
And to see dynamically built object html, try entering into IE address
bar javascript:alert(document.getElementById('some id').innerHTML);
Works with FF, too.
I prefer Firebug for debugging scripts in Firefox; you definitely should try
that.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Jun 27 '08 #9

P: n/a
On Tue, 06 May 2008 21:36:14 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.dewrote:
>no****@nowhere.net wrote:
>Ever tried to use MS VS.NET for debugging JS? Try it, and you'll
never want to use anything else.

I have tried it, and I prefer the MS Script Debugger for JScript, for its
not being evaluation software that cannot be registered, and its comparably
small memory footprint. Never wanting to use anything else would be
nonsense anyway because MS VS.NET can only debug JScript, not JavaScript or
other ECMAScript implementations.
It attaches to IE and debugs _any_ script currently running - be that
MS-only JScript, plain vanilla JavaScript, or even (cough!) vbscript.
>
>[...]
And to see dynamically built object html, try entering into IE address
bar javascript:alert(document.getElementById('some id').innerHTML);
Works with FF, too.

I prefer Firebug for debugging scripts in Firefox; you definitely should try
that.
Thanks, I surely will.
>

PointedEars
Jun 27 '08 #10

P: n/a
On Tue, 06 May 2008 07:54:25 -0400, sheldonlg <sheldonlgwrote:
>no****@nowhere.net wrote:
>And to see dynamically built object html, try entering into IE address
bar javascript:alert(document.getElementById('some id').innerHTML);
Works with FF, too.

Thanks. That was [almost] great. The "almost" is because I can't cut
and paste it. If I could do the cut and paste, I could either (a)
format it nicely to see where I may have made a mistake or (b) put it
into a separate html file that I could then validate and have W3C do
that work for me. Is there a variant that would allow me to do that.

BTW, IE changes things slightly. It removes the quotes around things
like class="thisclass" whereas FF doesn't. However, the formatting in
IE is somewhat better in starting new lines.
OK, here's a 'greater' implementation that answers your prayer - but
much more heavyweight. You enter into IE address bar
javascript:getIt([some id], [optional true]);
The optional parameter doesn't work with FF due to outerHTML not being
a part of its object model, but setting it to false or just omitting
works.

NNN
<textarea id="src" rows="20" cols="150" style="display:none;"
comment="I am here for testing only. Delete me in
Production."></textarea>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
function getIt(id,outer)
{
//test function - displays ACTUAL HTML of the object corresponding
"id"
var ta=Get('src');
if(!ta)
{
alert('not available in this Release');
return;
}
var target=Get(id);
if(target)
{
ta.value=(outer?target.outerHTML:target.innerHTML) ;
ta.style.display='block';
}
else alert(id+' does not correspond to any object on the page');
}
</script>
Jun 27 '08 #11

P: n/a
On Wed, 07 May 2008 00:28:44 GMT, "no****@nowhere.net"
<my***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>On Tue, 06 May 2008 07:54:25 -0400, sheldonlg <sheldonlgwrote:
>>no****@nowhere.net wrote:
>>And to see dynamically built object html, try entering into IE address
bar javascript:alert(document.getElementById('some id').innerHTML);
Works with FF, too.

Thanks. That was [almost] great. The "almost" is because I can't cut
and paste it. If I could do the cut and paste, I could either (a)
format it nicely to see where I may have made a mistake or (b) put it
into a separate html file that I could then validate and have W3C do
that work for me. Is there a variant that would allow me to do that.

BTW, IE changes things slightly. It removes the quotes around things
like class="thisclass" whereas FF doesn't. However, the formatting in
IE is somewhat better in starting new lines.

OK, here's a 'greater' implementation that answers your prayer - but
much more heavyweight. You enter into IE address bar
javascript:getIt([some id], [optional true]);
The optional parameter doesn't work with FF due to outerHTML not being
a part of its object model, but setting it to false or just omitting
works.

NNN
<textarea id="src" rows="20" cols="150" style="display:none;"
comment="I am here for testing only. Delete me in
Production."></textarea>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
function getIt(id,outer)
{
//test function - displays ACTUAL HTML of the object corresponding
"id"
var ta=Get('src');
if(!ta)
{
alert('not available in this Release');
return;
}
var target=Get(id);
if(target)
{
ta.value=(outer?target.outerHTML:target.innerHTML) ;
ta.style.display='block';
}
else alert(id+' does not correspond to any object on the page');
}
</script>
Sorry, that was copy-paste from a place that uses stub function Get to
getElementById (just to type less - no other benefits). Replace Get
with getElementById to make the code above work - or just add this:

function Get(someId)
{return getElementById(someId);}

;-)

NNN

Jun 27 '08 #12

P: n/a
no****@nowhere.net wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2008 07:54:25 -0400, sheldonlg <sheldonlgwrote:
>no****@nowhere.net wrote:
>>And to see dynamically built object html, try entering into IE address
bar javascript:alert(document.getElementById('some id').innerHTML);
Works with FF, too.
Thanks. That was [almost] great. The "almost" is because I can't cut
and paste it. If I could do the cut and paste, I could either (a)
format it nicely to see where I may have made a mistake or (b) put it
into a separate html file that I could then validate and have W3C do
that work for me. Is there a variant that would allow me to do that.

BTW, IE changes things slightly. It removes the quotes around things
like class="thisclass" whereas FF doesn't. However, the formatting in
IE is somewhat better in starting new lines.

OK, here's a 'greater' implementation that answers your prayer - but
much more heavyweight. You enter into IE address bar
javascript:getIt([some id], [optional true]);
The optional parameter doesn't work with FF due to outerHTML not being
a part of its object model, but setting it to false or just omitting
works.

NNN
<textarea id="src" rows="20" cols="150" style="display:none;"
comment="I am here for testing only. Delete me in
Production."></textarea>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
function getIt(id,outer)
{
//test function - displays ACTUAL HTML of the object corresponding
"id"
var ta=Get('src');
if(!ta)
{
alert('not available in this Release');
return;
}
var target=Get(id);
if(target)
{
ta.value=(outer?target.outerHTML:target.innerHTML) ;
ta.style.display='block';
}
else alert(id+' does not correspond to any object on the page');
}
</script>
Thanks. I am storing this one away for future use. I solved my
problem. It was due to an unclosed tag. So, while I don't need it now,
I am sure I will use it in the future.
Jun 27 '08 #13

P: n/a
no****@nowhere.net wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 00:28:44 GMT, "no****@nowhere.net"
<my***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>On Tue, 06 May 2008 07:54:25 -0400, sheldonlg <sheldonlgwrote:
>>no****@nowhere.net wrote:

And to see dynamically built object html, try entering into IE address
bar javascript:alert(document.getElementById('some id').innerHTML);
Works with FF, too.
Thanks. That was [almost] great. The "almost" is because I can't cut
and paste it. If I could do the cut and paste, I could either (a)
format it nicely to see where I may have made a mistake or (b) put it
into a separate html file that I could then validate and have W3C do
that work for me. Is there a variant that would allow me to do that.

BTW, IE changes things slightly. It removes the quotes around things
like class="thisclass" whereas FF doesn't. However, the formatting in
IE is somewhat better in starting new lines.
OK, here's a 'greater' implementation that answers your prayer - but
much more heavyweight. You enter into IE address bar
javascript:getIt([some id], [optional true]);
The optional parameter doesn't work with FF due to outerHTML not being
a part of its object model, but setting it to false or just omitting
works.

NNN
<textarea id="src" rows="20" cols="150" style="display:none;"
comment="I am here for testing only. Delete me in
Production."></textarea>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
function getIt(id,outer)
{
//test function - displays ACTUAL HTML of the object corresponding
"id"
var ta=Get('src');
if(!ta)
{
alert('not available in this Release');
return;
}
var target=Get(id);
if(target)
{
ta.value=(outer?target.outerHTML:target.innerHTML) ;
ta.style.display='block';
}
else alert(id+' does not correspond to any object on the page');
}
</script>

Sorry, that was copy-paste from a place that uses stub function Get to
getElementById (just to type less - no other benefits). Replace Get
with getElementById to make the code above work - or just add this:

function Get(someId)
{return getElementById(someId);}
Thanks again. I am primarily a server side programmer (php) and Java,
c, etc. I have learned a lot of javascript over these past couple of
months, but I am still quite new to it. My question is that I have used
document.getElementById('src'). When is it allowable to leave off the
"document." prefix?
Jun 27 '08 #14

P: n/a
no****@nowhere.net wrote:
On Tue, 06 May 2008 21:36:14 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>no****@nowhere.net wrote:
>>Ever tried to use MS VS.NET for debugging JS? Try it, and you'll
never want to use anything else.
I have tried it, and I prefer the MS Script Debugger for JScript, for its
not being evaluation software that cannot be registered, and its comparably
small memory footprint. Never wanting to use anything else would be
nonsense anyway because MS VS.NET can only debug JScript, not JavaScript or
other ECMAScript implementations.

It attaches to IE and debugs _any_ script currently running - be that
MS-only JScript, plain vanilla JavaScript, or even (cough!) vbscript.
You obviously don't know what JScript and JavaScript are. It would appear
to be best to refrain from posting here until you do.

http://jibbering.com/faq/
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Jun 27 '08 #15

P: n/a
On Wed, 07 May 2008 23:59:21 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.dewrote:
>no****@nowhere.net wrote:
>On Tue, 06 May 2008 21:36:14 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>>no****@nowhere.net wrote:
Ever tried to use MS VS.NET for debugging JS? Try it, and you'll
never want to use anything else.
I have tried it, and I prefer the MS Script Debugger for JScript, for its
not being evaluation software that cannot be registered, and its comparably
small memory footprint. Never wanting to use anything else would be
nonsense anyway because MS VS.NET can only debug JScript, not JavaScript or
other ECMAScript implementations.

It attaches to IE and debugs _any_ script currently running - be that
MS-only JScript, plain vanilla JavaScript, or even (cough!) vbscript.

You obviously don't know what JScript and JavaScript are.
Gee, I an doing it for almost 10 years, and I don't know. Pray
enlighten me: what goes between the tags
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
//some script
</script>
???
And what this thing refers to:<script language="javascript"
type="text/javascript" src="Scripts/someFile.js"></script>

If the script in question is not javascript, then what is?

AFAIK, JScript is MS implementation of ESMAscript, with some things a
bit different from javascript (don't care which ones and how different
- just not using any MS-specific stuff in scripting). Yet IE
understands regular plain javascript just as well as any MS-specific
one.
It would appear
to be best to refrain from posting here until you do.
This is Usenet. And the last time I checked, the 1st Amendment was
still on the books.
>
http://jibbering.com/faq/
PointedEars
RGDS,
NNN

Jun 27 '08 #16

P: n/a
"no****@nowhere.net" <my***********@hotmail.comwrites:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 23:59:21 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.dewrote:
>>You obviously don't know what JScript and JavaScript are.

Gee, I an doing it for almost 10 years, and I don't know. Pray
enlighten me: what goes between the tags
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
(You should omit the "language" attribute :)
//some script
</script>
???
And what this thing refers to:<script language="javascript"
type="text/javascript" src="Scripts/someFile.js"></script>

If the script in question is not javascript, then what is?
Mr. Lahn does not accept the use of "javascript" (and in particular
"JavaScript") as a generic name for ECMAScript compatible languages
used in browsers.
"JavaScript" is the name of the language accepted by Netscape/Mozilla,
"JScript" is the name of the language accepted by IE.

While pedantically correct, this position flies in the fase of
common usage.
If the script itself needs a name for its language, then "javascript"
is the obvious choice (from e.g. the "text/javascript" designation).
What compatible language interpreters are used to interpret it
does not change the language of the script, which lies in the
intersection of these languages.
AFAIK, JScript is MS implementation of ESMAscript, with some things a
bit different from javascript (don't care which ones and how different
- just not using any MS-specific stuff in scripting). Yet IE
understands regular plain javascript just as well as any MS-specific
one.
JScript is slightly different from Mozilla's JavaScript, most web
scripts lie in the intersection of the two, with authors actively
avoiding incompatabilities. That intersection language is indeed what
most people mean when they say "javascript".

> It would appear
to be best to refrain from posting here until you do.
This is Usenet. And the last time I checked, the 1st Amendment was
still on the books.
Indeed. PointedEars, stop telling people not to post. It's not for you
to decide.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Jun 27 '08 #17

P: n/a
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
"no****@nowhere.net" <my***********@hotmail.comwrites:
>On Wed, 07 May 2008 23:59:21 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.dewrote:
>>You obviously don't know what JScript and JavaScript are.
Gee, I an doing it for almost 10 years, and I don't know. Pray
enlighten me: what goes between the tags
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

(You should omit the "language" attribute :)
>//some script
</script>
???
And what this thing refers to:<script language="javascript"
type="text/javascript" src="Scripts/someFile.js"></script>

If the script in question is not javascript, then what is?
That depends on the ECMAScript implementation that is executing it.
Mr. Lahn does not accept the use of "javascript" (and in particular
"JavaScript") as a generic name for ECMAScript compatible languages
used in browsers.
"JavaScript" is the name of the language accepted by Netscape/Mozilla,
"JScript" is the name of the language accepted by IE.

While pedantically correct, this position flies in the fase of
common usage.
Mr. Nielsen also does not quite get the point which is that JScript and
JavaScript are different languages, and that a Microsoft Debugger does not
allow to debug Netscape/Mozilla.org JavaScript as if it was running in a
friendly environment, such as Gecko-based UAs. Therefore it is not possible
to stick to MS VS.NET for the development of client-side scripts without
irresponsibly ignoring the many other execution environments out there.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Jun 27 '08 #18

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <48**************@PointedEars.de>, Wed,
7 May 2008 23:59:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de>
posted:
>
You obviously don't know what JScript and JavaScript are. It would appear
to be best to refrain from posting here until you do.
So lautet das Fazit des selbst ernannten Fuhrer.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SonOfRFC1036)
Jun 27 '08 #19

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In comp.lang.javascript message <48**************@PointedEars.de>, Wed,
7 May 2008 23:59:21, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de>
posted:
>You obviously don't know what JScript and JavaScript are. It would appear
to be best to refrain from posting here until you do.

So lautet das Fazit des selbst ernannten Fuhrer.

I'm guessing, but does that translate to something like "So says the
Fascist and self-proclaimed Fuhrer"?
Jun 27 '08 #20

P: n/a
On Thu, 08 May 2008 15:06:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.dewrote:
>Therefore it is not possible
to stick to MS VS.NET for the development of client-side scripts without
irresponsibly ignoring the many other execution environments out there.
PointedEars
Fully agree on this one. My approach is - write in one environment
(accidentally it's VS.NET because it integrates well with my
server-side environment), test - and quite often do
if(isIE){//IE-specific;} if(isFF){//Firefox-specific;}... - in all
target environments. Sometimes (more often than I'd like it to happen)
it's not possible to write to the lowest common denominator due to the
lack thereof, therefore the branching. Though IMO it is not due to
syntax or scripting engine differences but rather due to differences
in document object models. Yet there's nothing better than VS.NET to
debug IE-specific and common code, so much so that I badly miss it
when I have to use Venkman for FF branches. Definitely VS.NET is not
even comparable to MS script debugger - this one is in the same class
as Venkman.

NNN

Jun 27 '08 #21

P: n/a
no****@nowhere.net wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
>Therefore it is not possible
to stick to MS VS.NET for the development of client-side scripts without
irresponsibly ignoring the many other execution environments out there.
[...]
Please trim your quotes, especially avoid quoting signatures.
Fully agree on this one. My approach is - write in one environment
(accidentally it's VS.NET because it integrates well with my
server-side environment), test - and quite often do
if(isIE){//IE-specific;} if(isFF){//Firefox-specific;}... - in all
target environments.
While it is good to see that after all this time you are telling about you
are able to differentiate between host environments and their associated
AOM/DOM, you still have to learn to differentiate between execution/runtime
environments, i.e. ECMAScript implementations. I was more referring to mere
differences between the language implementations, and between their versions
that you would be dealing with, instead. For example, the terms
"IE-specific" and "Firefox-specific" are not covering the differences
between JScript and JavaScript, whereas the former is used by all versions
of the MSHTML browser component, and the latter is used by *all* Gecko-based
UAs (in different versions each), and they are ignoring other implementations.

See also http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix (I am going to add and test more
implementations, particularly Opera ECMAScript, and Apple JavaScriptCore as
of Safari 3.1 for Windows).
PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
Jun 27 '08 #22

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.