Prev: JSON.parse error
Next: how to handle this AJAX error?
From: David Mark on 2 Aug 2010 05:32
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/833699/clientheight-clientwidth-returning-different-values-on-different-browsers

"The properties: document.body.clientHeight, document.body.clientWidth
return different values on IE7, IE8 and Firefox:

IE 8:
document.body.clientHeight : 704 document.body.clientWidth : 1148

IE 7:
document.body.clientHeight : 704 document.body.clientWidth : 1132

FireFox:
document.body.clientHeight : 620 document.body.clientWidth : 1152"

This is certainly to be expected and not a problem at all, though many
libraries include "CSS resets" to try to "normalize" such differences
(for no good reason).

Why would anybody care if these numbers vary from one browser to the
next? Are they writing scripts with expected heights and widths hard-
coded in their logic?

"Why does this discrepancy exits? Are there any equivalent properties
that are consistent across different browsers (IE8, IE7, FireFox)"

I don't understand the obsession with trying to get the exact same
numbers for every property. jQuery does all sorts of bizarre things
to try to effect such "normalization", usually to its detriment (i.e.
its height/width methods violate the GIGO principal, often making the
retrieved numbers useless).

For example, if I want to add five pixels to the height or width of an
element, I can easily do it with basic DOM methods/properties, but in
jQuery, sometimes (depending on the browser, rendering mode, styling,
etc.) you can't get there from here as it fiddles with the returned
dimensions.

The "answer" with the green check mark (I think that means it is the
one chosen by the questioner as the most appropriate) is:-

"This has to do with the browser's box model. Use something like
jQuery or another JavaScript abstraction library to normalize the DOM
model."

Of course, this has nothing at all to do with box models. And the
magic answer to every "problem" is to use a library. No small wonder
that jQuery is the knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) recommendation.

"What is jQuery equivalent for clientWidth and clientHeight?"

Something that doesn't work reliably.

"jQuery $(document).height $(document).width also return variable
values on different browsers"

And quite possibly the *wrong* values, at least if you need to do
anything with them besides needlessly comparing them to the results in
other browsers.

"Paul A is right about why the discrepancy exists but the solution
offered by Ngm is wrong (in the sense of JQuery).

The equivalent of clientHeight and clientWidth in jquery (1.3) is
$(window).width(), $(window).height()"

It's all reads like random words thrown together. And IIRC, this
"solution" attempts to compute the viewport dimensions (which have
nothing to do with the clientWidth/Height of the body, except in IE
quirks mode).

"It may be caused by IE's box model bug. To fix this, you can use the
Box Model Hack."

Again with the box model. You don't need any "Box Model Hack" to do
anything and MS invented the properties in question. There's no "box
model bug".

This is the second responder with a Stack Overflow "score" over 5000.
Is it any wonder that developers are so confused? That site is a
blithering amplifier, churning out random nonsense sprinkled with
technical terms and exhortations to use jQuery.

"The equivalent of offsetHeight and offsetWidth in jQuery is $
(window).width(), $(window).height() It's not the clientHeight and
clientWidth"

Even if that were true, why are developers so obsessed with finding
"equivalents" to perfectly usable properties.

"i had a similar problem - firefox returned the correct value of
obj.clientHeight but ie did not- it returned 0. I changed it to
obj.offsetHeight and it worked. Seems there is some state that ie has
for clientheight - that makes it iffy."

Insanity. And the worst thing is that the authors of jQuery (and the
rest of the "major" libraries) are also in the dark with these
properties. They may be able to recite what they mean, but they sure
don't know what to do with them. IIRC, jQuery's height/width methods
start with offsetHeight/Width and then try to compute and subtract the
border and padding, resulting in figures that are worthless for cross-
browser/DOM/box model compatibility. It's like they don't know what
problem they are trying to solve, except to try to make every number
come out the same to satisfy some dubious unit tests.

Odd considering these properties have behaved the same way since well
before the turn of the century. They are also fairly well-
documented. I believe the MSDN article that was posted with the
arrival of *IE4* is still up there (the one with the graphic that
illustrates which parts of the element are measured by each
property). Back in those days, we didn't have a jQuery to de-
normalize the DOM for us. :)

Like I've said before, it's not the browsers that are the problem.
It's the dubious and aimless libraries and the air of voodoo that
surrounds them that cause most of the problems.
From: Matt Kruse on 2 Aug 2010 14:33
On Aug 2, 4:32 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, this has nothing at all to do with box models.  And the
> magic answer to every "problem" is to use a library.  No small wonder
> that jQuery is the knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) recommendation.

This is a good example of why jQuery is popular and you are not.

jQuery offers a solution that makes people feel better. They get the
same number. They can work with that. In their opinion, they are
better off than where they started.

You offer no solution or explanation or help in any way. You post the
equivalent of "ha ha, look at these idiots who don't know the
answer!".

Until you become helpful, you will continue to be seen as an
irrelevant side-show.

Matt Kruse
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 2 Aug 2010 15:21
On Aug 2, 4:32 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> Odd considering these properties have behaved the same way since well
> before the turn of the century.  They are also fairly well-
> documented.  I believe the MSDN article that was posted with the
> arrival of *IE4* is still up there (the one with the graphic that
> illustrates which parts of the element are measured by each
> property).  Back in those days, we didn't have a jQuery to de-
> normalize the DOM for us.  :)

References for the sake of search:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms530302%28VS.85%29.aspx
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Dom:element.offsetheight
From: David Mark on 2 Aug 2010 21:49
On Aug 2, 2:33 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 4:32 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, this has nothing at all to do with box models.  And the
> > magic answer to every "problem" is to use a library.  No small wonder
> > that jQuery is the knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) recommendation.
>
> This is a good example of why jQuery is popular and you are not.

Popular with whom? You? I honestly couldn't care less.

You come off like a petulant child (as usual).

>
> jQuery offers a solution that makes people feel better.

LOL. Kind of like snake oil?

> They get the
> same number. They can work with that. In their opinion, they are
> better off than where they started.

No, I suggest you read my post again.

>
> You offer no solution or explanation or help in any way.

Wrong. I've written extensively on the subject. Here is the
definitive treatment, which I guess you missed:-

http://www.cinsoft.net/size.html

> You post the
> equivalent of "ha ha, look at these idiots who don't know the
> answer!".

Again, I suggest you re-read my explanations.

>
> Until you become helpful, you will continue to be seen as an
> irrelevant side-show.
>

By you. The authors of these stupid things sure don't agree. And you
never take the time to thank for me that; instead choosing to pop up
like some deranged muppet every time I "insult" your favorite
library. Good luck with your popular but completely broken library.
You are doing your clients a great service with that thing.
From: David Mark on 3 Aug 2010 05:49
On Aug 2, 9:49 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2:33 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 2, 4:32 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of course, this has nothing at all to do with box models.  And the
> > > magic answer to every "problem" is to use a library.  No small wonder
> > > that jQuery is the knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) recommendation.
>
> > This is a good example of why jQuery is popular and you are not.
>
> Popular with whom?  You?  I honestly couldn't care less.
>
> You come off like a petulant child (as usual).
>
>
>
> > jQuery offers a solution that makes people feel better.
>
> LOL.  Kind of like snake oil?
>
> > They get the
> > same number. They can work with that. In their opinion, they are
> > better off than where they started.
>
> No, I suggest you read my post again.
>
>
>
> > You offer no solution or explanation or help in any way.
>
> Wrong.  I've written extensively on the subject.  Here is the
> definitive treatment, which I guess you missed:-
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/size.html
>
> > You post the
> > equivalent of "ha ha, look at these idiots who don't know the
> > answer!".
>
> Again, I suggest you re-read my explanations.
>

And to alleviate any confusion among the uninitiated, there is no
"answer" to the "question" posted on StackOverflow and (as the name
indicates), that site is literally bursting with such exchanges (so I
can hardly correct them all). I have tried a few times in the past
and my real answers were voted down in favor or fantasy answers (the
type that recommend snake oil like jQuery to soothe the suffering of
incompetents, but do nothing but waste time and money for their
clients).

I'll make a wild prediction that the obsessive Matt Kruse made no
attempt to "answer" that exchange either.

And as for him, he's like that guy in Memento. Based on his postings
of the last three years, he apparently can't form new memories. I
think he carries around worn out polaroids of me and John Resig.
Under Resig's he's written "pretty good" and under mine "unhelpful".
Don't trust his lies. ;)
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: JSON.parse error
Next: how to handle this AJAX error?