FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-07-20)
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Kenneth Tilton on 24 Jul 2010 01:04 Dr J R Stockton wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <7e2a9f9c-4973-4686-bf69-3603a8b95a71(a)s2 > 4g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:25:33, David Mark > <dmark.cinsoft(a)gmail.com> posted: > >> On Jul 21, 2:46 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> ASIDE : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm>, if fed with >>> the FAQ or with a page such as mine are, will generate the HTML >>> for an index to that page, appearing like the FAQ already has. >>> But not in Chrome - why? >>> >> Didn't fair much better in Opera 10.5. Pressing enter in the URI > ^^^^ No 10.60 ? > In English, that would be "fare". I mention that for the benefit of > foreigners who want to improve their English, or want not to be deceived > into dis-improving it. I see you have yet to figure out why no one likes you, going back to your similarly obnoxious behaviour when you were ten. kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: David Mark on 24 Jul 2010 01:34 On Jul 23, 4:18 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <7e2a9f9c-4973-4686-bf69-3603a8b95a71(a)s2 > 4g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:25:33, David Mark > <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > >On Jul 21, 2:46 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > >wrote: > > >[...] > > >> ASIDE : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm>, if fed with > >> the FAQ or with a page such as mine are, will generate the HTML > >> for an index to that page, appearing like the FAQ already has. > >> But not in Chrome - why? > > >Didn't fair much better in Opera 10.5. Pressing enter in the URI > > ^^^^ No 10.60 ? > In English, that would be "fare". I mention that for the benefit of > foreigners who want to improve their English, or want not to be deceived > into dis-improving it. Yes, typo. Thanks for the English lesson though, doc! I really appreciate it. :) > > >input did nothing. > > On the whole, one should consider that data input controls might be used > in order, with the actuation following. Huh? You've got a text input and a button that does something with that input. You do understand that if hitting enter in the text input fails to do the same thing as the button, then you have botched the basic interface. > > > I finally figured out that the green thing was a > >button (don't style buttons!) and clicked it... > > In the real world, buttons are commonly colour-coded. You mean physical buttons? What's your point? For one, it's a piece of software (where buttons are not commonly color-coded) and for two, there was but one button. You really need some lessons in UI design, doc. > Did you notice > the Operatically invisible   after the button? No, I sure didn't. Is there a point to that? > > >JavaScript -http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm > > >Uncaught exception: ReferenceError: Security error: attempted to read > >protected variable > >Error thrown at line 34, column 2 in ReadWebPage() in > >http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm: > > BODY = Ifr.contentDocument.body // Locally, dies here in Chrome > > >That was usinghttp://www.cinsoft.net/as a test subject. Something > >that looked like it appeared in the IFRAME and then boom! > > >Back to the drawing board, doc! :) > > IAEFRTI. You are simply too subterranean for your own good, doc. I gave you the benefit of the doubt (that it wasn't just random gibberish) and Googled it. Read the instructions? Have you *seen* that document?! > In particular, it seems that you missed the first paragraph of > the "Operation" section, and also forgot that there may be restrictions > preventing a page in one domain from inspecting the entrails of a page > in another domain. I forgot nothing. It's up to you to write competent software; such exceptions are avoidable after all. Good luck with that, uh, thing. :)
From: David Mark on 25 Jul 2010 21:27 On Jul 25, 4:16 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <83a5a05f-663e-478e-9d13-5fa8c93271d3(a)p1 > 1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:34:18, David Mark > <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > > > > > >On Jul 23, 4:18 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> In comp.lang.javascript message <7e2a9f9c-4973-4686-bf69-3603a8b95a71(a)s2 > >> 4g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:25:33, David Mark > >> <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > >> >On Jul 21, 2:46 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > >> >wrote: > >> >input did nothing. > > >> On the whole, one should consider that data input controls might be used > >> in order, with the actuation following. > > >Huh? You've got a text input and a button that does something with > >that input. You do understand that if hitting enter in the text input > >fails to do the same thing as the button, then you have botched the > >basic interface. > > There are five actual text inputs, named 'File' to 'Indent', a similar- > looking readonly field, The read-only field should not look particularly similar to the others. > three textareas which ought to be (and now are ; > thanks) readonly. Fair enough. > If any of the actual input fields should trigger > execution, it should logically be the last of them - but the author > cannot predict which will be changed in which order. One certainly does > not want them all to trigger the action. On pressing enter, why not? If the input is not read to be processed (validate it before proceeding), then tell the user. > > >> Did you notice > >> the Operatically invisible   after the button? > > >No, I sure didn't. Is there a point to that? > > Just a dig at Opera, really. In other browsers, the spacing is better. Oh. > > > > >> >JavaScript -http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm > > >> >Uncaught exception: ReferenceError: Security error: attempted to read > >> >protected variable > >> >Error thrown at line 34, column 2 in ReadWebPage() in > >> >http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm: > >> > BODY = Ifr.contentDocument.body // Locally, dies here in Chrome > > >> >That was usinghttp://www.cinsoft.net/asa test subject. Something > >> >that looked like it appeared in the IFRAME and then boom! > > >> >Back to the drawing board, doc! :) > > >> IAEFRTI. > > >You are simply too subterranean for your own good, doc. I gave you > >the benefit of the doubt > > You should have had no doubt : OTTINMODNPPSODNPDW. Keep digging doc, you might break the surface some day. :) > > > (that it wasn't just random gibberish) and > >Googled it. Read the instructions? Have you *seen* that document?! > > Which document? The very long-winded one you originally cited. > The relevant instructions are on the page itself. See previous comment about that document. > Those who do not understand them should not expect mere meddling with > the controls to be useful. Doc, your interface is simple enough that it should need no instructions to avoid exceptions. > > Remember : many, perhaps most, of those here write predominantly > commercial pages, intended for /hoi polloi/ to use. Who? Again doc, too obscure. Are you trying to communicate with the masses or confuse them? > I do not. Oh, I see. Well, on the Web you can't really pick your audience. > I write > for intelligent people - some JavaScript programmers and above. So if the user can't make sense of your simple interface without burrowing through the dense instructions, then they are too stupid for your consideration? > > >> In particular, it seems that you missed the first paragraph of > >> the "Operation" section, and also forgot that there may be restrictions > >> preventing a page in one domain from inspecting the entrails of a page > >> in another domain. > > >I forgot nothing. It's up to you to write competent software; such > >exceptions are avoidable after all. > > The page is suitable for the class of user for whom it was written. I don't think so. The document in the IFRAME was rewritten by some "Merlyn" process of yours, so it didn't come from another domain. And regardless, exceptions should be expected by the software and can be handled easily enough. > Just consider it as a sort of intelligence test. I guess I am too dumb for your advanced applications. Sorry to let you down, doc. > > However, I have become able to upgrade the response to the unavoidable > failure that you observed earlier. Ah good, but see above about the cited domain issue. > > Query : if scr of an iframe is set to a non-existent file, the > default "404" message is shown. Possibly, but not necessarily. Some servers send a response body and some browsers can be configured to display such. > That does not necessarily include > "404", and a valid page can of course contain "404". I'm with you... > Is there a way of > detecting, in JavaScript, failure to load the page requested? Well, you could try with XHR first and admonish the user if it fails.
From: David Mark on 27 Jul 2010 22:16 On Jul 27, 6:45 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <dd2c6602-c152-407b-8ca1-78a2b6ec0fb8(a)g2 > 1g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:27:54, David Mark > <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > > > > > >On Jul 25, 4:16 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> In comp.lang.javascript message <83a5a05f-663e-478e-9d13-5fa8c93271d3(a)p1 > >> 1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:34:18, David Mark > >> <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > >> >On Jul 23, 4:18 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > >> >wrote: > >> >> In comp.lang.javascript message <7e2a9f9c-4973-4686-bf69-3603a8b95a71(a)s2 > >> >> 4g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:25:33, David Mark > >> >> <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > >> >> >On Jul 21, 2:46 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >input did nothing. > > >> >> On the whole, one should consider that data input controls might be used > >> >> in order, with the actuation following. > > >> >Huh? You've got a text input and a button that does something with > >> >that input. You do understand that if hitting enter in the text input > >> >fails to do the same thing as the button, then you have botched the > >> >basic interface. > > >> There are five actual text inputs, named 'File' to 'Indent', a similar- > >> looking readonly field, > > >The read-only field should not look particularly similar to the > >others. > > Then you want Safari. What does that mean? When I said not to style inputs, I didn't mean that *all* styling was inappropriate (just the clown pants button schemes discussed previously). > > The field is marked "Status", and positioned after the button; that > should be enough. One will soon detect that it cannot be written to. If you have to detect it by twiddling with it, you'd failed in your design. > > >> three textareas which ought to be (and now are ; > >> thanks) readonly. > > >Fair enough. > > >> If any of the actual input fields should trigger > >> execution, it should logically be the last of them - but the author > >> cannot predict which will be changed in which order. One certainly does > >> not want them all to trigger the action. > > >On pressing enter, why not? If the input is not read to be processed > >(validate it before proceeding), then tell the user. > > No need to validate; if the user enters nonsense, he will get the > consequences. It does no harm. That could rewrite the rules of UI design... You just might be on to something here, doc. :) > > >> > Read the instructions? Have you *seen* that document?! > > >> Which document? > > >The very long-winded one you originally cited. > > You must mean "See <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-262-5.htm>" > which, being before the ASIDE, is not relevant to it. I meant the document you directed me to with the odd colored button and iframe. IIRC, it had a bunch of accompanying verbiage. > > > > >> The relevant instructions are on the page itself. > > >See previous comment about that document. > > >> Those who do not understand them should not expect mere meddling with > >> the controls to be useful. > > >Doc, your interface is simple enough that it should need no > >instructions to avoid exceptions. > > >> Remember : many, perhaps most, of those here write predominantly > >> commercial pages, intended for /hoi polloi/ to use. > > >Who? Again doc, too obscure. Are you trying to communicate with the > >masses or confuse them? > > The masses are of no interest here; I write for those who are > sufficiently elite - which varies from communication to communication. We're trying to have a civilization here, doc. > > >Oh, I see. Well, on the Web you can't really pick your audience. > > Agreed, for the initial audience (which is why all pages should have, at > least, a link to a home page). But the obtuse can depart whenever they > wish. I'm not following, but you can expect mass departures from that particular document (likely within a few seconds of arrival). > > > > >> I write > >> for intelligent people - some JavaScript programmers and above. > > >So if the user can't make sense of your simple interface without > >burrowing through the dense instructions, then they are too stupid for > >your consideration? > > Correct. Indeed, a user of the primarily-intended class certainly needs > the instructions when revisiting such a page after an interval. Well, your interface must not be very intuitive. > > >> >> In particular, it seems that you missed the first paragraph of > >> >> the "Operation" section, and also forgot that there may be restrictions > >> >> preventing a page in one domain from inspecting the entrails of a page > >> >> in another domain. > > >> >I forgot nothing. It's up to you to write competent software; such > >> >exceptions are avoidable after all. > > >> The page is suitable for the class of user for whom it was written. > > >I don't think so. The document in the IFRAME was rewritten by some > >"Merlyn" process of yours, so it didn't come from another domain. And > >regardless, exceptions should be expected by the software and can be > >handled easily enough. > > The document as shown in the iframe should be exactly the same as it > would be if shown in an ordinary window of the same size. What are you talking about now? The issue was the domain it originated from. I know the contents of that IFRAME did not originate from mine and the mention of "Merlyn" indicates that it came from some domain of yours. So why the security violation? > It is there > to be recognised, not to be read. I recognized it, just as I recognized the error console that popped up in Opera after it loaded. > It is the document named in the File > field. Yes. Well, sort of (see above). > It serves merely as an example; a real user, having read the > instructions, would change it to be one of his own pages. But I did use one of my own pages. > > >> Just consider it as a sort of intelligence test. > > >I guess I am too dumb for your advanced applications. Sorry to let > >you down, doc. > > >> However, I have become able to upgrade the response to the unavoidable > >> failure that you observed earlier. > > >Ah good, but see above about the cited domain issue. > > The page is intended to read from its own domain. How the hell can it read one of *my* pages from its own domain? I think you mean that some process on your server fetches it and rewrites it with some comments that mention "Merlyn". So again, what's the problem with the exception I noted? You seem to have screwed up somewhere. > I see no need to read > from another (I expect it to read from its own machine, either directly > of with both served by Apache or suchlike), and I don't actually know > how to. So when are you going to sign up for one of my support plans? I can't keep going around in circles with you like this forever without remuneration. Sorry, but my occasional forays into free debugging are for reserved for neophytes. An "elite" bloke like yourself does not qualify. > > >> Query : if scr of an iframe is set to a non-existent file, the > >> default "404" message is shown. > > >Possibly, but not necessarily. Some servers send a response body and > >some browsers can be configured to display such. > > >> That does not necessarily include > >> "404", and a valid page can of course contain "404". > > >I'm with you... > > >> Is there a way of > >> detecting, in JavaScript, failure to load the page requested? > > >Well, you could try with XHR first and admonish the user if it fails. > > XHR? XMLHttpRequest? No, X-Ray Hummus Ravioli. > > The page now has a Directory field, in Fuchsia. When empty, things are > as without it. When it points to a directory file, the File field is > now an argument to new RegExpm and all files named in the directory and > matching the RegExp are processed. The Directory will have been > generated according to the instructions. > > That works; and, when it is tidied, it will be uploaded (sans fuchsia). Great.
From: David Mark on 29 Jul 2010 19:11
On Jul 29, 2:47 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <ffcbe820-a822-4a7d-9651-e4e1db3f7109(a)v6 > g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:16:01, David Mark > <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > >On Jul 27, 6:45 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> In comp.lang.javascript message <dd2c6602-c152-407b-8ca1-78a2b6ec0fb8(a)g2 > >> 1g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:27:54, David Mark > >> <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > >> >The read-only field should not look particularly similar to the > >> >others. > > >> Then you want Safari. > > >What does that mean? When I said not to style inputs, I didn't mean > >that *all* styling was inappropriate (just the clown pants button > >schemes discussed previously). > > You are not familiar with Safari? Do you not occasionally test stuff > with all major browsers? By default (AFAIK) read-only fields in Safari > are grey. You are so eminently predictable, doc. That's exactly what I was getting at. You are free to affect such non-intrusive styles if you like. Carry on. > > >> The field is marked "Status", and positioned after the button; that > >> should be enough. One will soon detect that it cannot be written to.. > > >If you have to detect it by twiddling with it, you'd failed in your > >design. > > My design is that users should read the instructions. First. That's the hallmark of a bad design. > > >> No need to validate; if the user enters nonsense, he will get the > >> consequences. It does no harm. > > >That could rewrite the rules of UI design... You just might be on to > >something here, doc. :) > > Remember that there is no server-side coding; user input is not > transmitted. It's WYSIWYD. // D = Deserve > > In this case it's difficult to think of anything that *can* usefully be > validated independently of the main processing without running any risk > of being restrictive. Then why do you have a problem with allowing the enter key to trigger the action? > > >> >> > Read the instructions? Have you *seen* that document?! > > >> >> Which document? > > >> >The very long-winded one you originally cited. > > >> You must mean "See <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-262-5.htm>" > >> which, being before the ASIDE, is not relevant to it. > > >I meant the document you directed me to with the odd colored button > >and iframe. IIRC, it had a bunch of accompanying verbiage. > > Presumably, therefore, you code Web pages, including JavaScript, by > sheer intuition, without needing to read (for example) HTML 4 or ECMA > 262 ? That doesn't follow. We are talking about using your form, not programming. > > >> >Oh, I see. Well, on the Web you can't really pick your audience. > > >> Agreed, for the initial audience (which is why all pages should have, at > >> least, a link to a home page). But the obtuse can depart whenever they > >> wish. > > >I'm not following, but you can expect mass departures from that > >particular document (likely within a few seconds of arrival). > > So be it; it costs me nothing. Except the time it took to write, post and promote it. > > >> >I don't think so. The document in the IFRAME was rewritten by some > >> >"Merlyn" process of yours, so it didn't come from another domain. And > >> >regardless, exceptions should be expected by the software and can be > >> >handled easily enough. > > >> The document as shown in the iframe should be exactly the same as it > >> would be if shown in an ordinary window of the same size. > > >What are you talking about now? The issue was the domain it > >originated from. I know the contents of that IFRAME did not originate > >from mine and the mention of "Merlyn" indicates that it came from some > >domain of yours. So why the security violation? > > None, since you chose (wittingly or otherwise) to use a page on my site > to index a page on my site. If too many people try that, I'll prevent > it, for bandwidth reasons. I use the page locally, of course. You aren't making sense, doc. I chose a page on my domain. Something on your server fetched it, added comments to the top and served it to that IFRAME. I know I wasn't seeing things. > > >I recognized it, just as I recognized the error console that popped up > >in Opera after it loaded. > > Then you should say what error it gave. I *did*. > > >> It is the document named in the File > >> field. > > >Yes. Well, sort of (see above). > > >> It serves merely as an example; a real user, having read the > >> instructions, would change it to be one of his own pages. > > >But I did use one of my own pages. > > Then it would be helpful to say which, and where. I cannot test one of > your own pages; but I can test a copy thereof. The root document on my domain (though I don't see how that matters). > > >> The page is intended to read from its own domain. > > >How the hell can it read one of *my* pages from its own domain? I > >think you mean that some process on your server fetches it and > >rewrites it with some comments that mention "Merlyn". So again, > >what's the problem with the exception I noted? You seem to have > >screwed up somewhere. > > It is showing your page; but it is not reading it. It is in the nature > of iframes that they allow cross-domain viewing, but not cross-domain > examination of innards. Only by such examination can the purpose be > fulfilled. I know. That is what caused the exception. I thought you understood that. > > >> I see no need to read > >> from another (I expect it to read from its own machine, either directly > >> of with both served by Apache or suchlike), and I don't actually know > >> how to. > > >So when are you going to sign up for one of my support plans? I can't > >keep going around in circles with you like this forever without > >remuneration. Sorry, but my occasional forays into free debugging are > >for reserved for neophytes. An "elite" bloke like yourself does not > >qualify. > > Then you are being commercially imprudent. I don't need you for > debugging; but you do help to improve the instructions - and I may well > need to find them adequate next year. How is it commercially imprudent to deny you free debugging sessions? > > Once you have stopped responding, I'll be able to re-ask certain > questions with a greater expectation that someone else may read them. Your wish is my command. :) > > >> >> Is there a way of > >> >> detecting, in JavaScript, failure to load the page requested? > > >> >Well, you could try with XHR first and admonish the user if it fails. > > >> XHR? XMLHttpRequest? > > >No, X-Ray Hummus Ravioli. > > Does Ravoli work when not using a server? Yes, if you fetch it from the kitchen yourself. > > >> The page now has a Directory field, in Fuchsia. When empty, things are > >> as without it. When it points to a directory file, the File field is > >> now an argument to new RegExpm and all files named in the directory and > >> matching the RegExp are processed. The Directory will have been > >> generated according to the instructions. > > >> That works; and, when it is tidied, it will be uploaded (sans fuchsia).. > > >Great. > > That should be done quite soon; any version dated today or later will > have it. But you will be unable to use it without enhanced divination > of the /modus operandi/. IAEFRTI. > Great. |