How can I read html data of other site (with javascript or etc)?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation in javascript. (2010-03-23)
Next: FAQ Topic - How do I format a Date object with javascript? (2010-03-28)
From: Asen Bozhilov on 28 Mar 2010 09:46 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Asen Bozhilov wrote: > > try { > > new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP').open; > > }catch(e) { > > window.alert(e instanceof TypeError); //true > > } > > Your example does not support your argument. Implementing a method > differently than specified includes throwing any exception when it is > called. Yes yes, i was mistaken. They just implement in other way. With follow example that can observe: var xhr = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP'); window.alert(xhr.readyState); Thanks for corrections.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 28 Mar 2010 10:01 Sean Kinsey wrote: [attribution restored] > [Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:] >> Those properties are not designed to do the things you want them to do. > > That might be, but the hammer, designed to hit nails, still work > perfectly for breaking tiles as it makes use of the primary property > of the hammer, the ability to build up, store, and transfer kinetic > energy. I find your argument strewn with gaping defects in logic. >> > And why do you say that they are proprietary properties? >> >> There is no public standard to define them. >> >> > Both window.name and the hash part of the url are standard in the web >> > browser, >> >> No, they are not. They have perhaps merely achieved the status of >> quasi-standard by now. Still, it would be that quasi-standard status >> that provides a basis for the recommendation against that which you are >> doing. > > OK, fine, I'm not an expert on the spec, Yet you pose as being one. What does that tell you about the quality of your "knowledge"? > but I do know that those features _are_ indeed available in all the > target browsers (that being IE6/IE7). Whereas availability is well beside the point, though. > And before you start on my potential lack of support for other > browsers not implementing the newer postMessage interface; this is a > choice made on the assumption that those using 'other' browsers than > IE6/7 are capable people who do update their software. An assumption not supported by the available facts, of course. >> An object has a property designed for a purpose. Storing data in its >> value that does not correspond with that purpose obviously constitutes >> misuse. > > Misuse with regard to its intention maybe, but not a use that brings > any negative effect. Again, the hammer and the nail. To use that metaphor, you know only a *subset* of *current* nails. >> It does not apply to the `name' property of iframe objects. > Earlier tests showed that it did (and there are many references to it > on the internet), but I'll retest as many things has changed in the > library since that piece of code was written. That fact has not changed since MSHTML 5.0, and has been discussed in particular by Richard Cornford here. >> The usual script-kiddie response. > No, that is the response of a pragmatist. Insulting those who mean to provide useful advice regarding the feasibility of an approach is not the response of a pragmatist; it is the response of an ignorant, if not a complete idiot. It should therefore not come as a surprise that reactions to such inappropriate behavior would not include any further pointers. >> But it was in my next-to-latest posting instead. Learn to quote. > Will do You better really do it. >> > So in order to reach some goal (enabling cross domain messaging) I am >> > now _not_ allowed to use the only available techniques usable for said >> > goal? >> >> You are allowed to do anything stupid. Just do not expect it to work >> reliably, or promote it as such, and see yourself as having really >> understood what you are doing. > Well I do expect it to work reliably on all the target browser, There is your problem. > in fact, its an observable truth that it _does_ work in the target > browsers. How many combinations of data have you tested? 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
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 28 Mar 2010 10:13 Asen Bozhilov wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Asen Bozhilov wrote: >> > try { >> > new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP').open; >> > }catch(e) { >> > window.alert(e instanceof TypeError); //true >> > } >> >> Your example does not support your argument. Implementing a method >> differently than specified includes throwing any exception when it is >> called. > > Yes yes, i was mistaken. They just implement in other way. > With follow example that can observe: > > var xhr = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP'); > window.alert(xhr.readyState); I see your verbal concession, but what is this code supposed to prove? > Thanks for corrections. You're welcome. 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
From: Asen Bozhilov on 28 Mar 2010 10:29 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Asen Bozhilov wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Asen Bozhilov wrote: > >> > try { > >> > new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP').open; > >> > }catch(e) { > >> > window.alert(e instanceof TypeError); //true > >> > } > > var xhr = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP'); > > window.alert(xhr.readyState); > > I see your verbal concession, but what is this code supposed to prove? I like the truth, I'm not so headstrong especially when i saw my mistakes :) It prove your words about special [[Get]] of that object and disaprove my theory for non-existing [[Get]] method. However, thanks for pointed out that.
From: Sean Kinsey on 28 Mar 2010 10:46
> [Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:] > > [Sean Kinsey wrote:] > > but I do know that those features _are_ indeed available in all the > > target browsers (that being IE6/IE7). > > Whereas availability is well beside the point, though. Actually, when it comes to a pragmatic approach towards leveraging the available features of a browser in order to gain new features, then it is in fact the only point. > An assumption not supported by the available facts, of course. I have stated an assumption, you refer to facts. Where can I see these facts? > To use that metaphor, you know only a *subset* of *current* nails. Yes, and thats the 'nails' I target, and to be honest, the risk of IE6 suddenly changing its behavior is minute, if not to say non-existent. > > >> It does not apply to the `name' property of iframe objects. > > Earlier tests showed that it did (and there are many references to it > > on the internet), but I'll retest as many things has changed in the > > library since that piece of code was written. > > That fact has not changed since MSHTML 5.0, and has been discussed in > particular by Richard Cornford here. I just did a new test, and based on this I have removed the before mentioned code. > > >> The usual script-kiddie response. > > No, that is the response of a pragmatist. > > Insulting those who mean to provide useful advice regarding the feasibility > of an approach is not the response of a pragmatist; it is the response of > an ignorant, if not a complete idiot. It should therefore not come as a > surprise that reactions to such inappropriate behavior would not include > any further pointers. I do apologize if it came across as an insult. > > >> But it was in my next-to-latest posting instead. Learn to quote. > > Will do > > You better really do it. > > >> > So in order to reach some goal (enabling cross domain messaging) I am > >> > now _not_ allowed to use the only available techniques usable for said > >> > goal? > > >> You are allowed to do anything stupid. Just do not expect it to work > >> reliably, or promote it as such, and see yourself as having really > >> understood what you are doing. > > Well I do expect it to work reliably on all the target browser, > > There is your problem. A useless comment as my expectations are based on observable facts > > > in fact, its an observable truth that it _does_ work in the target > > browsers. > > How many combinations of data have you tested? All the relevant ones. |