QUESTION: Can a function be set up as a constant in JS?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: how to get url of script
Next: question of logic?
From: David Mark on 31 Mar 2010 22:09 Stefan Weiss wrote: > On 31/03/10 02:58, David Mark wrote: >> Stefan Weiss wrote: >>> On 31/03/10 01:11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> It (/etc/apache2/sites-available/default-ssl) has been changed to >>>>>> >>>>>> | BrowserMatch "MSIE [2-6]" \ >>>>>> | nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \ >>>>>> | downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 >>>>>> | # MSIE 7 and newer should be able to use keepalive >>>>>> | BrowserMatch "MSIE [17-9]" ssl-unclean-shutdown >>>>>> >>>>>> in apache2.2-common 2.2.15-2. >>> [...] >>>> The expression above should be further refined, though, as there are >>>> still too many false positives with it (Opera 5.02 to 8.0 for Windows >>>> being a distinct possibility, for example). >>> Or even more recent versions. In a collection of user agent strings >>> (which is admittedly over a year old), I found >>> >>> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.2; en) Opera 9.51 >>> >>> That would definitively be a false positive, and it's very likely that >>> newer Opera versions are also affected. My sympathy is somewhat limited, >>> though... that's what you get for masquerading as Mozilla and MSIE, when >>> you're neither. >> I have all the sympathy in the world for them. Opera 9-10 represent >> competent, standards-based browsers, yet are constantly running into >> exceptions on the Web (e.g. Google Adsense, MSDN, eBay and other huge >> sites that can't seem to buy a decent Web developer). They had no >> choice but to put on such a masquerade due to incompetently written >> scripts (the authors of which usually cop-out by blaming the >> users/browsers). It's the same reason that IE had no choice but to >> masquerade as Mozilla back during the "browser wars" of the late 90's. >> It is the authors of such scripts (and the site owners dumb enough to >> trust them) that I have no sympathy for. To this day, they write and >> deploy scripts that sniff the UA string, excluding users for no reason >> (other than their own incompetence) and truly seem to believe that it is >> the evil users/browsers that are making life hard for _them_. Talk to >> these people and terms like "pragmatic" and "real world" crop up >> immediately (and they translate to "idiotic" and "fantasy world" in my >> book). :) > > I would call this UA charade the prototype of a pragmatic solution. Yes, for the browser developers. But that's real pragmatism, not the fantasy pragmatism espoused by the people are actually creating the problem that requires the solution. > The > browsers are pretending to be something they're not, and they are > specifically targetting badly written sniffer scripts. That's something > you in particular would never condone if it were done in JS. I don't quite see the connection. They are doing it to stop badly written scripts from excluding them (and users do the same thing). Regardless of pretensions, it's a fact that the UA string has been rendered meaningless as a result. Ten years later and the "pragmatic' script authors are still making the same stupid mistakes. > It would be > like... defining a global jQuery object in MyLibrary, and adding > wrappers for their core methods -- just kidding! ;) Don't laugh. There are plenty of ill-conceived libraries out there that do that. I guess they really think jQuery "just works", when it has been demonstrated that it can't even do simple queries consistently from one browser (or jQuery version) to the next. Without the queries (which are clearly to be avoided), what's left to wrap? :) > > Don't get me wrong, I think Opera is an outstanding piece of software, > and I use it frequently. I do too, despite the constant script exceptions (makes browsing quite an adventure though). But you can bet that if I have to fill in a form or something else where a bad script could waste my time, I switch to Chrome or FF. > It comes with some very useful tools for > developers, and it's more than adequate as a day-to-day browser. I've never tried their developer tools other than the good old error console (and I curse every time I accidentally open up some strange new pane that I don't want). Dragonfly right? The opening animation is nice anyway. > I even > like the company's attitude. The only criticism I have is their lack of > openness (as in opening their bug tracker and their source code), but > that's just the way I tick. YMMV. I couldn't care less what they do with their source code or bug tracker. :) > > I do understand why they did the UA trick, of course. It was a sensible > business decision at the time, and in the long run, it has probably done > more good than harm. IE started us down that road. It would have been good for developers too as it never would have made sense to try to write scripts based on the UA string (even if all were 100% genuine), but the incompetents decided to forge ahead with such idiocy, despite the fact that the UA strings are mostly used to deceive. Logic based on lies. Imagine. > At the very least, they're still in business, which > I think is a good thing for the web ecosystem as a whole. I have no idea. > But it's still > a dirty hack, and being mistaken for an Internet Explorer when you're > technically superior is one of the drawbacks. Tons of things are mistaken for IE. I remember arguing with John Resig about that a couple of years back. Apparently he hadn't heard. :) > > To put it another way: if you go out wearing a wig and a fancy dress, > don't be surprised when that smelly wasted bum in the corner of the pub > makes a pass at you :) > > It's more like if you must wear a disguise because incompetent bouncers only let certain types in, don't be surprised if you get in and have a great time. :) |