how to put data from XML file to <select> ? Not working localy.
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Quicktime and innerHTML
Next: option & textnode
From: VK on 24 Apr 2010 02:59 On Apr 24, 10:40 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Whereas if load is used, only one ActiveX object is needed. For IE even more simple way could be by using XML Data Islands and overloading <script> element: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms766512(VS.85).aspx "A good first place to start for determining recommendation for file protocol would be to write a test suite and run existing implementations through it to see how they behave." That is a great idea - strange it was not done yet and http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#ajaxRef is dead silent about this very common XHR use.
From: VK on 24 Apr 2010 03:18 On Apr 24, 10:40 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Should XMLHttpRequest use "file:///" or "file://" or "[drive]:\"? Or is > it limited to relative paths? If so, what is the file separator? Is the > browser expected to map "/" to the separator for that OS? Or should the > code not expect that "/" gets mapped to "\" or ":" (or (hopefully > not)"." or ">")? What about navigating to parent directories? This matter is not as complex as being put. XHR operates over HTTP interface and doesn't have access to local file system-level interfaces. This way: 1) No, absolute path cannot be used in any form, neither in system- dependent nor in browser-dependent nor in some universal one. 2) For relative path the regular HTML syntax must be used with '..' for directory up and '/' for directory down. '.' for root is not supported for the reason see point 1)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 24 Apr 2010 13:22 Garrett Smith wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> You're attemtping to use XMLHttpRequest for something it was not >>> designed for. XMLHttpRequest is in Working Draft status, and is >>> specified therein for http and https only[1]. >> Utter nonsense. When will you ever learn? The fact that a *draft* >> specifies something has absolutely no intrinsic meaning at all. Which is >> emphasized by the mere fact that XMLHttpRequest works for non-http and >> non- https URLs outside of MSHTML, i.e. in the majority of >> implementations, where some of them support considerable portions of the >> draft. > > The fact that I wrote that: "XMLHttpRequest is in Working Draft status" > indicates that it is a *draft*. You called that "utter nonsense", then > stated that it is a draft and asked me when I will ever learn. Well I > already knew that when I wrote it. It sounds like you are being > ridiculous and and self contradictory. No, you are. You are referring to a draft as the justification for an implementation when that implementation has nothing to do with the draft, and it is not appropriate to refer to a Working Draft as other than work in progress. Apparently you'll never learn. > [snip more nonsense] >> MSHTML 8 in IE 8 supports but one feature of HTML 5 as specified in the >> draft, and it is not XMLHttpRequest.¹ It is illogical to conclude that >> XMLHttpRequest works so in MSHTML because it *might* become so in HTML 5. >> >> ¹ <http://blogs.msdn.com/giorgio/archive/2009/11/29/ie8-and-html-5.aspx> >> > Is there a point in linking to that blog? Yes. If you could read ... > [...] >>> Example: >>> >>> <script type="text/javascript"> >>> var xmlDoc = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.DOMDocument"); >> >> var xmlDoc = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLDOM"); >> >>> xmlDoc.async = false; >>> xmlDoc.load("items.xml"); >> >> xmlDoc.loadXML(xhr.responseText); > > That would require creating two ActiveX objects; one for the request and > one for the parsing of the xhr responseText into a document. Yes. > Whereas if load is used, only one ActiveX object is needed. > [...] But the approach that uses two objects when necessary does not require a complete rewrite for the version that also works with the local filesystem, and it would not require those additional permissions you have talked about. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Garrett Smith on 24 Apr 2010 17:34 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Garrett Smith wrote: >>>> You're attemtping to use XMLHttpRequest for something it was not >>>> designed for. XMLHttpRequest is in Working Draft status, and is >>>> specified therein for http and https only[1]. >>> Utter nonsense. When will you ever learn? The fact that a *draft* >>> specifies something has absolutely no intrinsic meaning at all. Which is >>> emphasized by the mere fact that XMLHttpRequest works for non-http and >>> non- https URLs outside of MSHTML, i.e. in the majority of >>> implementations, where some of them support considerable portions of the >>> draft. >> The fact that I wrote that: "XMLHttpRequest is in Working Draft status" >> indicates that it is a *draft*. You called that "utter nonsense", then >> stated that it is a draft and asked me when I will ever learn. Well I >> already knew that when I wrote it. It sounds like you are being >> ridiculous and and self contradictory. > > No, you are. You are referring to a draft as the justification for an > implementation when that implementation has nothing to do with the draft, > and it is not appropriate to refer to a Working Draft as other than work > in progress. Apparently you'll never learn. > False, presumptuous bullshit. I referred to a w3c working draft. That much is true. You wrote that I did so in "justification for an implementation." That is false. I did not mention an implementation. You stated that I did so "when the implementation has nothing to with the draft.". That is false. I did not mention an implementation. I wrote: | You're attemtping to use XMLHttpRequest for something it was not | designed for. [...] -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 25 Apr 2010 17:05
Garrett Smith wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Garrett Smith wrote: >>>>> You're attemtping to use XMLHttpRequest for something it was not >>>>> designed for. XMLHttpRequest is in Working Draft status, and is >>>>> specified therein for http and https only[1]. >>>> Utter nonsense. When will you ever learn? The fact that a *draft* >>>> specifies something has absolutely no intrinsic meaning at all. Which >>>> is emphasized by the mere fact that XMLHttpRequest works for non-http >>>> and non- https URLs outside of MSHTML, i.e. in the majority of >>>> implementations, where some of them support considerable portions of >>>> the draft. >>> The fact that I wrote that: "XMLHttpRequest is in Working Draft status" >>> indicates that it is a *draft*. You called that "utter nonsense", then >>> stated that it is a draft and asked me when I will ever learn. Well I >>> already knew that when I wrote it. It sounds like you are being >>> ridiculous and and self contradictory. >> >> No, you are. You are referring to a draft as the justification for an >> implementation when that implementation has nothing to do with the draft, >> and it is not appropriate to refer to a Working Draft as other than work >> in progress. Apparently you'll never learn. > > False, presumptuous bullshit. There is no presumption, stupid. You *wrote* it. > I referred to a w3c working draft. That much is true. > > You wrote that I did so in "justification for an implementation." > > That is false. I did not mention an implementation. Yes, you did: "IE", i.e. the MSXML. > You stated that I did so "when the implementation has nothing to with > the draft.". > > That is false. I did not mention an implementation. Yes, you did. > I wrote: > > | You're attemtping to use XMLHttpRequest for something it was not > | designed for. And going on with saying that the draft would specify the behavior that "IE" exhibits. How is that *not* justifying the implementation with the draft? PointedEars -- Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are positively harmful for cross-browser scripting. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk> (2004) |