IE9--the end of the line for browser sniffers?
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 26 May 2010 19:34 On May 25, 9:27 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/25/2010 6:13 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 9:02 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/25/2010 5:40 PM, David Mark wrote: > > >>> On May 25, 8:09 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 5/25/2010 3:07 PM, David Mark wrote: > > >>>>> On May 25, 4:20 pm, "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/19/2010 6:02 AM, David Mark wrote: > > >>>>>>> From what I've heard of IE9, it sure seems to spell doom for Dojo, > >>>>>>> ExtJs, YUI, etc. And jQuery too (at least to some extent). > > >>>>>> FWIW, ran most aspects of my jQuery-heavy websites and extranet apps > >>>>>> through the the IE9 Platform Preview and not seeing any issues > >>>>>> whatsoever. > > >>>>> It's not worth a plugged nickel. jQuery doesn't use UA sniffing (and > >>>>> still no thank you card from them). > > >>>> To whom might that "thank you" card be most appropriately delivered? > > >>> Who do you think? We just went over this. > > >> I asked you first. What're you shy now or what? > > > LOL. Just tired of your amnesia-induced-endless-loop bullshit. ;) > > Doesn't look an answer to the question. Since when do I answer to you? :) And it's usually a waste of time. That can be taken as a > concession of the claim that someone deserves a "thank you" card (not > even Roger Gilreath, etc). One thing's for sure; you are owed nothing (except perhaps the well- deserved reputation of an amnesiac with inconceivably poor reading comprehension). Same goes for "dhtml", "dhtmlkitchen", etc. Some legacy that is.
From: David Mark on 26 May 2010 19:37 On May 26, 7:24 pm, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > On 5/25/2010 3:07 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > On May 25, 4:20 pm, "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > >> On 5/19/2010 6:02 AM, David Mark wrote: > > >>> From what I've heard of IE9, it sure seems to spell doom for Dojo, > >>> ExtJs, YUI, etc. And jQuery too (at least to some extent). > > >> FWIW, ran most aspects of my jQuery-heavy websites and extranet apps > >> through the the IE9 Platform Preview and not seeing any issues > >> whatsoever. > > > It's not worth a plugged nickel. jQuery doesn't use UA sniffing (and > > still no thank you card from them). They use bogus object inferences, > > which are less likely to be affected by what I described. But your > > empirical evidence gathered with the preview > > edition and your "jQuery-heavy" websites is virtually worthless. > > All I'm saying is, based on ~15 minutes of observation, the jQuery > apocalypse you continue to rant about appears very unlikely to arrive > with IE9. You are truly without a clue. The "jQuery apocalypse" has been here for years (your delusions notwithstanding). > > Perhaps IE9 will start a Dojo or YUI apocalypse and you can throw a > party or something. Dojo has never amounted to anything. Don't see a lot of YUI out there either (other than on Yahoo's site). > Stay upbeat. I couldn't be more upbeat. Thanks!
From: Dr J R Stockton on 27 May 2010 13:15 In comp.lang.javascript message <0dcced05-a32c-41e8-9c5f-ba2be82715ab(a)a2 0g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 25 May 2010 16:16:12, David Mark <dmark.cinsoft(a)gmail.com> posted: >On May 24, 12:08�pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> >> That Microsoft is careless. >> >> >Yes, that and a buck fifty will buy you a cup of coffee. >> >> Not round here. �It would be of more than $1.50 quality; and they'd want >> proper money too. > >What does that mean? It means that, round here, $1.50 would not buy me a cup of coffee, and that, therefore, you are wrong. >> >> I don't know whether you consider one of those, or something else, to be >> >> obvious. >> >> >Why are you trying to sniff out IE in the first place? �That's the >> >rub. >> >> It should not be done in finished code, but it can be rather useful in >> cross-browser testing : switch off one part that gives difficulty in IE >> and continue on easier IE work, knowing that the expert on IE will be >> back tomorrow or hoping that the newsgroup will be able to help. > >There are better ways to do that (e.g. conditional compilation). For dealing with IE, yes; it was only an example. There are differences between various non-IE browsers; for example, one has a fault which in certain circumstances give a display which is stable on other browsers a nasty case of the continuous twitch. For that, of course, it makes no sense to test for the aforementioned persistent IE error. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05. Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News. No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.
From: David Mark on 27 May 2010 20:30 On May 27, 1:15 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <0dcced05-a32c-41e8-9c5f-ba2be82715ab(a)a2 > 0g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 25 May 2010 16:16:12, David Mark > <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > >On May 24, 12:08 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> >> That Microsoft is careless. > > >> >Yes, that and a buck fifty will buy you a cup of coffee. > > >> Not round here. It would be of more than $1.50 quality; and they'd want > >> proper money too. > > >What does that mean? > > It means that, round here, $1.50 would not buy me a cup of coffee, and > that, therefore, you are wrong. It's a figure of speech, doc. > > >> >> I don't know whether you consider one of those, or something else, to be > >> >> obvious. > > >> >Why are you trying to sniff out IE in the first place? That's the > >> >rub. > > >> It should not be done in finished code, but it can be rather useful in > >> cross-browser testing : switch off one part that gives difficulty in IE > >> and continue on easier IE work, knowing that the expert on IE will be > >> back tomorrow or hoping that the newsgroup will be able to help. > > >There are better ways to do that (e.g. conditional compilation). > > For dealing with IE, yes; it was only an example. A very poor one as IE detection was the subject at hand. > There are differences > between various non-IE browsers; Do tell. > for example, one has a fault which in > certain circumstances give a display which is stable on other browsers a > nasty case of the continuous twitch. Your posts often give me a continuous twitch. I suppose I asked for it this time. :( > For that, of course, it makes no > sense to test for the aforementioned persistent IE error. No, it would be better if you left such things to those who know what they are doing. ;)
From: RobG on 27 May 2010 22:13
On May 27, 9:24 am, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > On 5/25/2010 3:07 PM, David Mark wrote: [...] > > It's not worth a plugged nickel. jQuery doesn't use UA sniffing (and > > still no thank you card from them). They use bogus object inferences, > > which are less likely to be affected by what I described. But your > > empirical evidence gathered with the preview > > edition and your "jQuery-heavy" websites is virtually worthless. > > All I'm saying is, based on ~15 minutes of observation, the jQuery > apocalypse you continue to rant about appears very unlikely to arrive > with IE9. From the new jQuery forum (trimmed for convenience): | Verison[sic] compatibility issue? | | I've got a site with the following code already in place: | | <script ... src="/javascript/jquery-1.2.6.min.js"></script> | <script ... src="/javascript/jquery-ui.js"></script> | <script ... src="/javascript/json2.js"></script> | <script ... src="/javascript/dialogs.js"></script> | <script ... src="/javascript/adminutils.js"></script> [...] | I'm trying to add this feature to a page: | http://www.clecompte.com/building-simple-jquery-rotating-carousel/ | | If I just load up this code with my existing jquery library | reference, it doesn't work. If I use a newer library (like 1.3.2 | used on the example page at the link above, or the latest version), | it breaks other things on the site. | | As a temporary workaround, I've used an iframe to bring this in as | a separate page, but obviously that's not ideal. | | I'd like to get everything working on the same page, but I'm | not sure where to begin troubleshooting. <URL: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/verison-compatibility-issue > It was posted 2 days ago on the new forum and not a single response. None. > Perhaps IE9 will start a Dojo or YUI apocalypse and you can throw a > party or something. Stay upbeat. Celebrating other's misfortunes is bad form - make sure you stay safe though. -- Rob |