FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing to do.
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Richard Cornford on 27 Jul 2010 16:41 Ry Nohryb wrote: > On Jul 27, 4:39 pm, Richard Cornford >> Yes, demanding that your expectations are satisfied without >> first having good grounds for those expectations is not >> reasonable. IE introduced the - innerHTML - property, and >> in IE it has never worked any differently than it does now. >> If others introduce non-compatible imitations of Microsoft's >> browser features that is no reason to expect those features >> to work any differently in Microsoft's browser. > > Also, given that innerHTML is as well in the 4 other major > browsers, and given that it works there better although > differently than in IEs, I can say that 4 browsers out > of 5 have a better innerHTML implementation than the > botched one (Microsoft's IE). Being worse isn't a bug, it's a feature. ;-) Richard.
From: David Mark on 27 Jul 2010 17:09 On Jul 27, 4:28 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 4:39 pm, Richard Cornford <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk> > > > > > Yes, demanding that your expectations are satisfied without first > > having good grounds for those expectations is not reasonable. IE > > introduced the - innerHTML - property, and in IE it has never worked > > any differently than it does now. If others introduce non-compatible > > imitations of Microsoft's browser features that is no reason to expect > > those features to work any differently in Microsoft's browser. > > Also, given that innerHTML is as well in the 4 other major browsers, > and given that it works there better although differently than in IEs, > I can say that 4 browsers out of 5 have a better innerHTML > implementation than the botched one (Microsoft's IE). You can't call Microsoft's botched (at least with regard to your previous complaint about tables). They invented/documented it. You could more appropriately say that the others are botched in that regard.
From: Ry Nohryb on 27 Jul 2010 17:35 On Jul 27, 10:41 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > Being worse isn't a bug, it's a feature. ;-) Sometimes yes, LOL. -- Jorge.
From: Matt Kruse on 27 Jul 2010 22:55 On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > > Or, because it supports ActiveX in an internal corporate intranet > > environment, where webapps can create and manipulate MSOffice objects > > to integrate existing business documents with database-driven webapps. > > Your other "Big 4" browser alternatives fail miserably in this regard. > But I'm talking about web browsers, and ActiveX has nothing to do with > the web. Right, right, right... and you make absolutely no sense. Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 28 Jul 2010 15:49
On Jul 28, 3:25 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote: > Matt Kruse wrote: > > On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 27, 10:02 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > >>> Or, because it supports ActiveX in an internal corporate intranet > >>> environment, where webapps can create and manipulate MSOffice objects > >>> to integrate existing business documents with database-driven webapps.. > >>> Your other "Big 4" browser alternatives fail miserably in this regard.. > >> But I'm talking about web browsers, and ActiveX has nothing to do with > >> the web. > > > Right, right, right... and you make absolutely no sense. > > You're arguing Jeorge's point. He's saying that if he makes a decision > not to support Internet Explorer, than he can count on correct garbage > collection. If there is a problem, he can dictate the browser. And both of those arguments are patently absurd. For one, Jorge is the dictator of a banana republic that exists only in his head. "El Abuelo" has no such powers in the real world. > > You're not arguing that support for IE is necessary for ActiveX > applications, which is to say, you're arguing a proprietary path. He's not arguing that support for IE is necessary for ActiveX. So he is arguing that ActiveX requires IE? That's not entirely accurate, but no matter as I don't see the relevancy of any of it. As for "proprietary path", innerHTML is just as proprietary to MS. The only difference is that other browsers have copied it. I don't see how any of this relates to Jorge's non-arguments concerning whether to support IE (MSHTML to be accurate) or not. The fact remains that professionals must support it and that should have been the end of this story (years ago). > If you > can dictate the browser based on application requirements (ActiveX) then > you can dictate the browser based on application requirements (proper > garbage collection). > You can't dictate anything on the Web with regard to the end-user's choice of browser. |