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: David Mark on 28 Mar 2010 17:33 Sean Kinsey wrote: > Sorry for not attributing the specific messages, I have yet to learn > how to do that. > > [David mark wrote:] >> At least two solutions have already been proposed for _specific_ >> contexts. Seeking to can a general-purpose solution is usually bad news >> and that has been the case with this project. I am truly sorry about >> your luck, but don't blame the messenger(s). > > [Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:] >> For crying out loud, a much better approach has been proposed here already. > > > The above was the reason for me expecting at least two solutions > (other than the ones I'm using). But you have blinders on. You have come up with an ill-advised design that you are determined to make work, but the sad truth is that there is no need for such a design. See my previous post.
From: Sean Kinsey on 28 Mar 2010 17:40 On Mar 28, 11:33 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > But you have blinders on. You have come up with an ill-advised design > that you are determined to make work, but the sad truth is that there is > no need for such a design. See my previous post. haha, no actually your'e the one with the blinders :) None of the solutions you provider, including script are viable options, or remotely solves the problems easyXDM claims to solve. Including scripts from different domains This is both security hazard AND it has nothing to do with communication between two javascript programs. It only allows a single javascript program to communicate with a server-side program on a different domain. Proxying This requires a server-side component, is slower than it needs be, AND AGAIN, does not allow two javascript programs to communicate, but one javascript application, and one server-side application. And I'm the incompetent one?
From: Sean Kinsey on 28 Mar 2010 17:47 On Mar 28, 11:33 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > But you have blinders on. You have come up with an ill-advised design > that you are determined to make work, but the sad truth is that there is > no need for such a design. See my previous post. So strange then that it actually works.... on all its targeted platforms.. and that people actually are using.... To quote a comment I just found <http://sixrevisions.com/javascript/ promising_javascript_frameworks/> [Sol Cross wrote:] > I am stunned by the venom and vitriol in every bit of David Mark writing I have seen today. > Perhaps he has been grievously wronged in the past by one or more of the other framework authors. > I dont know. He sounds rather like programmers who swear that anyone who codes in anything but assembly language is a fool. > Perhaps he is the JavaScript guru he appears to believe he is, but I cant see past his anger. > Jacob, thanks for bringing these alternatives to my attention. David, hundreds of millions of people happily use > countless websites on a daily basis that are built on the frameworks you so actively despise. Take it easy with the > anger thing it isnt good for you. Peace He took the words out of my mouth..
From: David Mark on 28 Mar 2010 18:11 Sean Kinsey wrote: > On Mar 28, 11:33 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> But you have blinders on. You have come up with an ill-advised design >> that you are determined to make work, but the sad truth is that there is >> no need for such a design. See my previous post. > > haha, no actually your'e the one with the blinders :) Your petulance is showing. :) > > None of the solutions you provider, including script are viable > options, or remotely solves the problems easyXDM claims to solve. Claims is the operative word. ;) Once again, give me any specific use case that you think calls for a design that begs for the use of your script (or the like), and I'll give you a design that does not require such a script. Good thing too as such scripts are clearly a bad idea. > > Including scripts from different domains > This is both security hazard You are generalizing. And you would seek to communicate with a script from an untrusted source? How could you believe anything it says? > AND it has nothing to do with > communication between two javascript programs. Stop shouting and of course it has to do with communication between two scripts (scripts from your domain and the one you inject from the other from another). > It only allows a single javascript program to communicate with a > server-side program on a different domain. Nonsense. > > Proxying > This requires a server-side component, Yes, and that's something you can't can. I'd rather design for reality than around your fantasies. > is slower than it needs be, Slower beats less reliable any day. > AND > AGAIN, does not allow two javascript programs to communicate, Stop shouting (again). And you are demonstrating your blindness to anything but designs that seem to indicate a requirement of your design. The fact is that you should never need such a design. > but one javascript application, and one server-side application. Often that's all you need (as was the case with the original question). > > > And I'm the incompetent one? You bet! ;)
From: David Mark on 28 Mar 2010 18:14
Sean Kinsey wrote: > On Mar 28, 11:33 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> But you have blinders on. You have come up with an ill-advised design >> that you are determined to make work, but the sad truth is that there is >> no need for such a design. See my previous post. > > So strange then that it actually works.... on all its targeted > platforms.. and that people actually are using.... Your period key seems to be stuck. And not strange at all that you can cite a handful of observed browsers/configuration that seem to work (or that people would be foolish enough to think that means it is a good solution). > > To quote a comment I just found <http://sixrevisions.com/javascript/ > promising_javascript_frameworks/> > [Sol Cross wrote:] >> I am stunned by the venom and vitriol in every bit of David Mark writing I have seen today. >> Perhaps he has been grievously wronged in the past by one or more of the other framework authors. >> I don�t know. He sounds rather like programmers who swear that anyone who codes in anything but assembly language is a fool. >> Perhaps he is the JavaScript guru he appears to believe he is, but I can�t see past his anger. >> Jacob, thanks for bringing these alternatives to my attention. David, hundreds of millions of people happily use >> countless websites on a daily basis that are built on the frameworks you so actively despise. Take it easy with the >> anger thing � it isn�t good for you. Peace > > He took the words out of my mouth.. Now your petulance is really showing. You can't argue logically, so you quote some irrelevant bit posted by an obvious crank. Good show! |