By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
444,058 Members | 1,209 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 444,058 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

JS 1.7 support: Who has it, etc.?

P: n/a
Which browsers, if any, other than FF2/3, support Javascript 1.7? And
in those, how do you turn it on? As in, for FF2 you must say:

<script type="application/javascript;version=1.7">

or the equivalent. Do you know the timeline for upcoming JS 1.7
support in browsers that don't currently support it?
Jun 27 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
19 Replies


P: n/a
joebloe wrote:
Which browsers, if any, other than FF2/3, support Javascript 1.7?
Other Mozilla browsers like SeaMonkey or Camino do. Actually I know that
SeaMonkey does, I have never used Camino but it is based on Gecko and
Spidermonkey as well so I would be pretty suprised if the latest Camino
version would not support JavaScript 1.7.
--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/
Jun 27 '08 #2

P: n/a
Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but it has seemed bizarrely
difficult to determine what browser supports what, and what an
upcoming release will support. Mozilla's developer page says, plainly,
"Version xx supports 1.6 and here are the new features in 1.6 and how
to use them ... Version xx supports 1.7 and here are ..." etc. But
where is that for MSIE, Opera, Safari, ....?

The application I'm working on doesn't have to be backward compatible
with anything and I'm even okay with requiring a user to run it from
FF2 or FF3, but I'd like to know what's up with the rest of the
browser world where future JS/ECMAscript support is concerned.

On May 16, 10:41 am, Martin Honnen <mahotr...@yahoo.dewrote:
joebloe wrote:
Which browsers, if any, other than FF2/3, support Javascript 1.7?

Other Mozilla browsers like SeaMonkey or Camino do. Actually I know that
SeaMonkey does, I have never used Camino but it is based on Gecko and
Spidermonkey as well so I would be pretty suprised if the latest Camino
version would not support JavaScript 1.7.
Jun 27 '08 #3

P: n/a
joebloe wrote:
Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but it has seemed bizarrely
difficult to determine what browser supports what, and what an
upcoming release will support. Mozilla's developer page says, plainly,
"Version xx supports 1.6 and here are the new features in 1.6 and how
to use them ... Version xx supports 1.7 and here are ..." etc. But
where is that for MSIE, Opera, Safari, ....?

The application I'm working on doesn't have to be backward compatible
with anything and I'm even okay with requiring a user to run it from
FF2 or FF3, but I'd like to know what's up with the rest of the
browser world where future JS/ECMAscript support is concerned.

Wikipedia has a comparison table. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but
it seems like it's better than nothing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...8ECMAScript%29

Jeremy
Jun 27 '08 #4

P: n/a
On May 16, 12:23 pm, Jeremy <jer...@pinacol.comwrote:
Wikipedia has a comparison table. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but
it seems like it's better than nothing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...es_%28ECMAScri...
I saw that, but I don't know where they got that info from, and on its
surface it is wildly inaccurate. :-(
Jun 27 '08 #5

P: n/a
On Fri, 16 May 2008 at 10:47:27, in comp.lang.javascript, joebloe wrote:
>Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but it has seemed bizarrely
difficult to determine what browser supports what, and what an
upcoming release will support. Mozilla's developer page says, plainly,
"Version xx supports 1.6 and here are the new features in 1.6 and how
to use them ... Version xx supports 1.7 and here are ..." etc. But
where is that for MSIE, Opera, Safari, ....?
<snip>

Microsoft has never been good at saying what it's done. There are legal
reasons why it has to be very careful about announcing what future
products will do.

Where does the number 1.7 come from ?

John
--
John Harris
Jun 27 '08 #6

P: n/a
VK
On May 16, 9:47 pm, joebloe <remid0d...@gmail.comwrote:
Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but it has seemed bizarrely
difficult to determine what browser supports what, and what an
upcoming release will support. Mozilla's developer page says, plainly,
"Version xx supports 1.6 and here are the new features in 1.6 and how
to use them ... Version xx supports 1.7 and here are ..." etc. But
where is that for MSIE, Opera, Safari, ....?
Microsoft has its own brand name of ECMAScript implementation called
JScript and its own version numbering schema going from IE3 (the first
one with JScript support). The schema is not fully consistent, being
attached at different times either to major JScript update or to the
browser version number. See it at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...9e(VS.80).aspx
See also version vector details for conditional comments at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...9e(VS.80).aspx
The current version for both IE6 and IE7 it is 5.6 with lesser-major
numbers different. On any IE just run
window.alert(''.concat(
ScriptEngineMajorVersion(), '.',
ScriptEngineMinorVersion(), '.',
ScriptEngineBuildVersion()
));
to see the exact numbers.
There is a gap left between 5.6 and 7 for upcoming upgrades, and the
next version number in use is 7.0 for JScript.NET but this engine is
server-side only so out of your interest I guess.

Other producers are using the original Netscape numbering schema with
JavaScript 1.0 for Netscape 2.x and JavaScript 1.5 being the current
industry standard de facto.
JavaScript 1.5 is pretty much equal to JScript 5.6 lesser some minor
algorithm implementations.

JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5
Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7

So overall you don't need to have any headache at all with versions
unless you want to use some of new Gecko-specific features.

Hope it helps.

Jun 27 '08 #7

P: n/a
On May 18, 12:46 pm, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.comwrote:
JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5
Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7

So overall you don't need to have any headache at all with versions
unless you want to use some of new Gecko-specific features.

Hope it helps.
Well, I'm committed to using JS 1.7 features (like let :-) so I guess
it'll be Gecko for me for at least another year. Or four. Which is
okay; I have no problem telling people to use Firefox for my (game)
application. But who knows, maybe Webkit will implement 1.7/1.8/etc.
before then. Opera and MSIE, forget it....

-j
Jun 27 '08 #8

P: n/a
VK
On May 19, 9:38 pm, joebloe <remid0d...@gmail.comwrote:
On May 18, 12:46 pm, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.comwrote:
JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5
Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7
So overall you don't need to have any headache at all with versions
unless you want to use some of new Gecko-specific features.
Hope it helps.

Well, I'm committed to using JS 1.7 features (like let :-) so I guess
it'll be Gecko for me for at least another year. Or four. Which is
okay; I have no problem telling people to use Firefox for my (game)
application. But who knows, maybe Webkit will implement 1.7/1.8/etc.
before then. Opera and MSIE, forget it....
It is your decision to make. For Mozilla Foundation JavaScript
specific questions you may also ask at
mozilla.dev.tech.javascript (language specific)
and
mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine (engine specific)
They are rather regularly being read by people who are actually making
the things.

Jun 27 '08 #9

P: n/a
VK wrote:
[JScript]
There is a gap left between 5.6 and 7 for upcoming upgrades, and the
next version number in use is 7.0 for JScript.NET but this engine is
server-side only so out of your interest I guess.
JScript 5.7 for Windows XP (and probably 5.8 for Vista and Windows Server
2008) obviously exist, however I have yet to check if there are any
differences to JScript 5.6 or if the increase in version is only attributed
to them being introduced with different OS versions.
Other producers are using the original Netscape numbering schema with
JavaScript 1.0 for Netscape 2.x and JavaScript 1.5 being the current
industry standard de facto.
Other products simply do not support JScript or JavaScript. And if anything
is an industry standard right now, it is not JavaScript 1.5 but ECMAScript
(ECMA-262) Edition 3 or ISO/IEC 16262:2002.
JavaScript 1.5 is pretty much equal to JScript 5.6 lesser some minor
algorithm implementations.
Not true, as has been discussed here already.
JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5
which also introduces proprietary features, however all of those
are backed up by the Specifications' Conformance sections.
Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7

So overall you don't need to have any headache at all with versions
unless you want to use some of new Gecko-specific features.
Not true either, Often Wrong.

http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix
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 #10

P: n/a
VK
On May 19, 10:07 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
JScript 5.7 for Windows XP (and probably 5.8 for Vista and Windows Server
2008) obviously exist, however I have yet to check if there are any
differences to JScript 5.6 or if the increase in version is only attributed
to them being introduced with different OS versions.
JScript 5.7 for IE7 does exists but so far it updates 5.6 only on
Vista installation of IE7 unless someone does manual jscript.dll
upgrade.
It has a noticeably upgraded gc mechanics to better handle intensive
memory usage in long running applications. See Eric Lippert blog at
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/ar.../17/53038.aspx
and Paul Dempsey explanations on 5.7 in blog's comments.
Nothing explicit what you could determine from the outside of the box:
just some solutions should start using lesser runtime memory.
Other producers are using the original Netscape numbering schema with
JavaScript 1.0 for Netscape 2.x and JavaScript 1.5 being the current
industry standard de facto.

Other products simply do not support JScript or JavaScript.
Your regular nonsense again.
And if anything
is an industry standard right now, it is not JavaScript 1.5 but ECMAScript
(ECMA-262) Edition 3 or ISO/IEC 16262:2002.
But this forum is not about ECMAScript - it is about Javascript.
JavaScript 1.5 is pretty much equal to JScript 5.6 lesser some minor
algorithm implementations.

Not true, as has been discussed here already.
The [1,2,] issue or the named function within an expression and a
dozen of similar discrepancies are way not enough to see two different
languages here. There are much more bigger differences between some C+
+ or Java implementations. Such issues still should be mentioned when
they are important but otherwise it is one language we are programming
on.
JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5

which also introduces proprietary features, however all of those
are backed up by the Specifications' Conformance sections.
like having new type of "comments" <? ... ?;-)
var foo = "foo"; <? foobar ?>
alert(foo); // no problem
Yes, I am aware of the XML grounds of this bizarrity but I mean can
you take such source code w/o modifications anywhere outside of most
modern Gecko builds?
Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7
So overall you don't need to have any headache at all with versions
unless you want to use some of new Gecko-specific features.

Not true either, Often Wrong.
Sometimes wrong, mostly right. Do not mix DOM interfaces' cross-
browser mess which is indeed huge and Javascript itself.
Jun 27 '08 #11

P: n/a
On May 19, 11:07 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
VK wrote:
JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5

which also introduces proprietary features, however all of those
are backed up by the Specifications' Conformance sections.
Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7
Why exactly would I want to continue writing Javascript 1.5? Is this
like writing FORTRAN 77? Something has to drive the adoption of the
improved, more expressive language. You say "it's my choice" like
there's something wrong with that choice. What, you resent change?
So overall you don't need to have any headache at all with versions
unless you want to use some of new Gecko-specific features.
Yes, but the Gecko-specific features (which are largely a subset of
and forward compatible with ECMAScript Ed 4) are, how to express this,
*useful*. And all of them will be adopted by other browsers in the
next year or two, except for IE, and who knows what will happen there.
Most likely, MS will adopt someone else's rendering/Javascript engine,
lest the killer app come along that won't run on IE.
Jun 27 '08 #12

P: n/a
On May 19, 12:40 pm, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.comwrote:
There are much more bigger differences between some C+
+ or Java implementations.
Not really, unless you count lame implementations like gcj that no one
uses (and that don't work). Java compilers and runtimes have extremely
high cross compatibility. The issues with C++ and C are much more
related to the system and OS environment than to language. Different
browsers, at least up till now, are like mutually exclusive
programming environments once you get to a certain level. I think this
is all going to change in the next couple of years, though, with
rendering engines finally catching up to and even driving standards,
and with there no longer being the feeling that writing for or
developing anything beyond IE is pointless.
Jun 27 '08 #13

P: n/a
[trimmed attribution novel]

VK wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>JScript 5.7 for Windows XP (and probably 5.8 for Vista and Windows
Server 2008) obviously exist, however I have yet to check if there are
any differences to JScript 5.6 or if the increase in version is only
attributed to them being introduced with different OS versions.

JScript 5.7 for IE7 does exists but so far it updates 5.6 only on Vista
installation of IE7 unless someone does manual jscript.dll upgrade.
It exists here on my *Windows XP* SP 2 system, presumably since I updated it
to IE 7.0. Otherwise I have only let the latest security fixes installed,
*automatically*.
It has a noticeably upgraded gc mechanics to better handle intensive
memory usage in long running applications. See Eric Lippert blog at
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/ar.../17/53038.aspx and Paul
Dempsey explanations on 5.7 in blog's comments. Nothing explicit what you
could determine from the outside of the box: just some solutions should
start using lesser runtime memory.
That would be good to know, thanks.
>>Other producers are using the original Netscape numbering schema with
JavaScript 1.0 for Netscape 2.x and JavaScript 1.5 being the current
industry standard de facto.
Other products simply do not support JScript or JavaScript.

Your regular nonsense again.
Other products (i.e. those not using Trident or Gecko as layout engine) do
not support JScript oder JavaScript, but their own ECMAScript
implementation. It's a fact that you refuse to accept because it does not
fit into your tiny fantasy world.
>And if anything is an industry standard right now, it is not JavaScript
1.5 but ECMAScript (ECMA-262) Edition 3 or ISO/IEC 16262:2002.

But this forum is not about ECMAScript - it is about Javascript.
This newsgroup is for all ECMAScript implementations unless there exists a
special newsgroup for a specification within the Big 8. That its charter
is somewhat outdated does not change the nature of the discussions we have
here, and the reason why we do.
>>JavaScript 1.5 is pretty much equal to JScript 5.6 lesser some minor
algorithm implementations.
Not true, as has been discussed here already.

The [1,2,] issue or the named function within an expression and a dozen
of similar discrepancies are way not enough to see two different
languages here. There are much more bigger differences between some C+ +
or Java implementations. Such issues still should be mentioned when they
are important but otherwise it is one language we are programming on.
I suggest you visit the ECMAScript Support Matrix site and get yourself
informed. If you don't trust that you may also look it up in the MSDN
Library (or ask Eric Lippert, but I doubt he'll be pleased to endure your
style again).
>>JavaScript 1.6 (Firefox 1.5) and JavaScript 1.7 (Firefox 2.0) are
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5
which also introduces proprietary features, however all of those are
backed up by the Specifications' Conformance sections.

like having new type of "comments" <? ... ?;-) var foo = "foo"; <?
foobar ?alert(foo); // no problem
Not true. It is no problem if the `<?' is followed by text that makes it
a a processing instruction. It is a SyntaxError ("invalid XML markup")
otherwise.
Yes, I am aware of the XML grounds of this bizarrity
Apparently you are not aware that this is not only an allowed, but also a
specified extension of ECMA-262, namely ECMA-357 / ISO/IEC 22537:2006
"ECMAScript for XML" (E4X).
but I mean can you take such source code w/o modifications anywhere
outside of most modern Gecko builds?
No, I don't think you can. That is what it makes a language of its own.
If only you would finally see that ...
>>Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7 So overall you don't need
to have any headache at all with versions unless you want to use some
of new Gecko-specific features.
Not true either, Often Wrong.

Sometimes wrong, mostly right.
And of what do you dream at night?
Do not mix DOM interfaces' cross- browser
mess which is indeed huge and Javascript itself.--
Whatever.
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
Jun 27 '08 #14

P: n/a
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
[trimmed attribution novel]
>But this forum is not about ECMAScript - it is about Javascript.

This newsgroup is for all ECMAScript implementations unless there exists a
^^^^^^^^^!
special newsgroup for a specification within the Big 8. That its charter
^^^^^^^^^^^^ implementation
is somewhat outdated does not change the nature of the discussions we have
here, and the reason why we do.
Jun 27 '08 #15

P: n/a
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
VK wrote:
>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>JScript 5.7 for Windows XP (and probably 5.8 for Vista and Windows
Server 2008) obviously exist, however I have yet to check if there are
any differences to JScript 5.6 or if the increase in version is only
attributed to them being introduced with different OS versions.
JScript 5.7 for IE7 does exists but so far it updates 5.6 only on Vista
installation of IE7 unless someone does manual jscript.dll upgrade.

It exists here on my *Windows XP* SP 2 system, presumably since I updated it
to IE 7.0. Otherwise I have only let the latest security fixes installed,
*automatically*.
I just spotted JScript *8.0* being provided by .NET 3.5 and supported by
Visual Studio 2008:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/x85xxsf4.aspx

I will update the ECMAScript Support Matrix accordingly.
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 #16

P: n/a
VK
On May 20, 10:20 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
With JScript however, as JScript was implemented after JavaScript, those
features have never been part of the programming language but always
part of the MSHTML DOM API. At least it has been so since about JScript
5.0, and the MSDN Library documentation clearly distinguishes between the
language ("JScript Reference") and the DOM API ("HTML and DHTML Reference").
Other words you Matrix is a collection of the earliest usages of
certain keywords such as "setTimeout", "alert", "window" etc. you
could fine in official JavaScript/JScript documentation archives of
some noticeable browser producers. Got it. It is an interesting
linguistical source then that may come useful someday for historians.
I am puzzled though why then you keep referring it recently here as
some practical coding helper or some compatibility issues helper? What
does the first have to do with the second?
If you can point me to an Eric Lippert statement saying that it was
different before, so much the better.
Different what? You need a reputable prove that windows.setTimeout is
available since IE3.0 and till now? Or that window.setTimeout was used
in JScript references for IE3? Sorry, I'm enjoying of gur
"vagryyrpghny banavfz", gur erny frk vf zhpu orggre :-)

Jun 27 '08 #17

P: n/a
VK wrote:
On May 20, 10:20 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
>With JScript however, as JScript was implemented after JavaScript,
those features have never been part of the programming language but
always part of the MSHTML DOM API. At least it has been so since about
JScript 5.0, and the MSDN Library documentation clearly distinguishes
between the language ("JScript Reference") and the DOM API ("HTML and
DHTML Reference").

Other words you Matrix is a collection of the earliest usages of certain
keywords such as "setTimeout", "alert", "window" etc. you could fine in
official JavaScript/JScript documentation archives of some noticeable
browser producers. Got it. It is an interesting linguistical source then
that may come useful someday for historians.
No, it is useful for everyday programming as new *language features*
are still coming up and you want to know if it is feasible to use them.
I am puzzled though why then you keep referring it recently here as some
practical coding helper or some compatibility issues helper? What does
the first have to do with the second?
I am not surprised your puny mind cannot comprehend that.
>If you can point me to an Eric Lippert statement saying that it was
different before, so much the better.

Different what?
That some features now considered part of the MSHTML DOM API have been part
of JScript before.
You need a reputable prove that windows.setTimeout is available since
IE3.0 and till now?
No, I am talking about the *programming language*, JScript.
Or that window.setTimeout was used in JScript references for IE3?
Something like that.
Sorry, I'm enjoying of gur "vagryyrpghny banavfz", gur erny frk vf zhpu
orggre :-)
Pot, cattle, black. This newsgroup has had enough of your zragny ibzvgvat
already.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
Jun 27 '08 #18

P: n/a
VK
On May 20, 11:57 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
Other words you Matrix is a collection of the earliest usages of certain
keywords such as "setTimeout", "alert", "window" etc. you could fine in
official JavaScript/JScript documentation archives of some noticeable
browser producers. Got it. It is an interesting linguistical source then
that may come useful someday for historians.

No, it is useful for everyday programming as new *language features*
are still coming up and you want to know if it is feasible to use them.
Taking from such practical point of view your matrix implies that say
any code using window.setTimeout will not work for any browsers
besides Gecko builds and never supposed to work anywhere else except
some very ancient Netscape releases. This is worst than a data
missing: this is an intended and gross misinformation if coupled with
suggestions "go check my matrix before using X". If you want to bring
the claimed practical value into your matrix yet you really want to
stay academically clean and clear than for each listed feature it has
to be the mark like part of the language / part of the window host
object / part of browser supported DOM - and then place setTimeout
everywhere on the same line but into different cells. It may get
complex to navigate but at least others will not have to be warned
each time you are referencing your matrix.
Jun 27 '08 #19

P: n/a
VK wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>Other words you Matrix is a collection of the earliest usages of certain
keywords such as "setTimeout", "alert", "window" etc. you could fine in
official JavaScript/JScript documentation archives of some noticeable
browser producers. Got it. It is an interesting linguistical source then
that may come useful someday for historians.
No, it is useful for everyday programming as new *language features*
are still coming up and you want to know if it is feasible to use them.

Taking from such practical point of view your matrix implies that say
any code using window.setTimeout will not work for any browsers
besides Gecko builds
No, it does not, as it explicitly refers to *language features*.
And I guess everyone but you can comprehend 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 #20

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.