how to put data from XML file to <select> ? Not working localy.
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Quicktime and innerHTML
Next: option & textnode
From: VK on 25 Apr 2010 18:30 On Apr 26, 1:30 am, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > * > * Correction from the test lab: contrary to what MS says > * and in support of my arguments at 2) discission a set > * of machines with IE6 / Win XP SP2 in default installation > * failed to puck up on Msxml2.XMLHTTP.3.0 so used the older > * version: yet they happily picked up on Msxml2.XMLHTTP.4.0 > * Whatever the exact reasons of it are, a branch for 4.0 > * is added to ensure the newest version usage in all > * given circumstances. Please disregard this comment: that was a false alarm from an altered configuration. I thought I deleted it but obviously I didn't. Sorry.
From: Garrett Smith on 26 Apr 2010 13:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > 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 wrote "it"? What "it"? I wrote exactly what I wrote. Here again: | 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]. You quoted that and responded that with presumptuous lies, trying to prove that I am stupid and wrong. Hence, ridiculous and self-contradictory. My name is not stupid and I am not stupid. In fact, I provided a workable solution to the OPs problem despite pointless, pedantic interruptions from a worthless man named Thomas Lahn. >> 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. > That paragraph does not mention "IE" or "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. > No, I did not. The entire paragraph, once more: | 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]. I stand by that entirely. That paragraph does not mention MSXML; MSXML is unrelated to XMLHttpRequest, and unrelated to what is noticed about XMLHttpRequest, which is linked in the footnote[1]:- | [1]<http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#introduction> >> 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? > That paragraph mentions nothing about the behavior of "IE". Therefore, it is not justifying the implementation with the draft. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 27 Apr 2010 06:23 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]. > > I stand by that entirely. > > That paragraph does not mention MSXML; It is referring explicitly to XMLHttpRequest behavior in "IE", though. > MSXML is unrelated to XMLHttpRequest, No, it is not. But more important is that "IE" is not unrelated to "XMLHttpRequest", by your own account. > and unrelated to what is noticed about XMLHttpRequest, which is linked in > the footnote[1]:- > > | [1]<http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#introduction> Once more, for the intellectually challenged: By saying that someone who uses XMLHttpRequest in "IE" "attempted to use XMLHttpRequest for something it was not designed for", when that something was local file access via `file', and then stating that "XMLHttpRequest [...] is specified [in the Working Draft [...] for `http' or `https' only" is undoubtedly justifying the (way the) implementation (in "IE" works) with the draft. And that is a fallacy, because a) the implementation is not based on the draft; and b) it is a *Working Draft*, nothing more: | Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C | Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or | obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | this document as other than work in progress. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There is no way for you to wind around that. >>> 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? > > That paragraph mentions nothing about the behavior of "IE". Therefore, > it is not justifying the implementation with the draft. Wrong. And I presume you already know that, but do not want to admit it. You are pitiful. PointedEars -- Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
From: Branco on 27 Apr 2010 10:49 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]. <snip> > Once more, for the intellectually challenged: By saying that someone who > uses XMLHttpRequest in "IE" "attempted to use XMLHttpRequest for something > it was not designed for", when that something was local file access via > `file', and then stating that "XMLHttpRequest [...] is specified [in the > Working Draft [...] for `http' or `https' only" is undoubtedly justifying > the (way the) implementation (in "IE" works) with the draft. <snip> That has to be the worst attempt I ever saw of trying to win an argument by twisting the fabrics of reality. Y, S, AAI. Regards, Branco.
From: Garrett Smith on 27 Apr 2010 15:43
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]. >> >> I stand by that entirely. >> >> That paragraph does not mention MSXML; > > It is referring explicitly to XMLHttpRequest behavior in "IE", though. > No, it is not. >> MSXML is unrelated to XMLHttpRequest, > > No, it is not. But more important is that "IE" is not unrelated to > "XMLHttpRequest", by your own account. > >> and unrelated to what is noticed about XMLHttpRequest, which is linked in >> the footnote[1]:- >> >> | [1]<http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#introduction> > > Once more, for the intellectually challenged: By saying that someone who > uses XMLHttpRequest in "IE" "attempted to use XMLHttpRequest for something > it was not designed for", when that something was local file access via > `file', and then stating that "XMLHttpRequest [...] is specified [in the > Working Draft [...] for `http' or `https' only" is undoubtedly justifying > the (way the) implementation (in "IE" works) with the draft. > You're making this up. > And that is a fallacy, because a) the implementation is not based on the > draft; and b) it is a *Working Draft*, nothing more: > So you're made-up story contains a fallacy? That's your problem. > | Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C > | Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or > | obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | this document as other than work in progress. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > There is no way for you to wind around that. > I stated that it was a draft. >>>> 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? >> That paragraph mentions nothing about the behavior of "IE". Therefore, >> it is not justifying the implementation with the draft. > > Wrong. And I presume you already know that, but do not want to admit it. > You are pitiful. > You wrongly misunderstood what I wrote and blamed me for it. What I wrote was clear and plain as day. How long are you going to carry on with silly nonsense? -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/ |