Prev: ECMA-262-5 in detail. Chapter 2. Strict Mode.
Next: Simple hack to get $500 to your home.
From: Joe Nine on 2 Jun 2010 00:36
David Mark wrote:
> The presence of QSA and non-QSA enabled browsers, as well as broken

What's this QSA I see mentioned occasionally here? Google was no help
http://www.google.com/search?q=qsa
From: Garrett Smith on 2 Jun 2010 01:00
On 6/1/2010 9:36 PM, Joe Nine wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> The presence of QSA and non-QSA enabled browsers, as well as broken
>
> What's this QSA I see mentioned occasionally here? Google was no help
> http://www.google.com/search?q=qsa

QSA - document.querySelectorAll. Handy lingo when you need to say
something in < 140 characters.
From: Garrett Smith on 2 Jun 2010 03:32
On 6/1/2010 6:53 PM, RobG wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:14 am, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/1/2010 4:28 PM, RobG wrote:
> [...]
>>> If the intention is to point out inconsistencies in the Sizzle
>>> selector engine, you're at risk of failing because of simple errors
>>> that affect the credibility of the exercise.
>>
>> Indubitably stupefied by my own quiz and point taken.
>
> I wonder whether it might be better to just state the expected
> (technically correct) result, then the actual (jQuery) result and why
> jQuery fails on the first attempt regardless of which answers are
> given. Requiring visitors to "pass" the test to get to the interesting
> part may distract from the valuable point being made.
>
>
The visitor at least gets the information that shows each browser doing
different things. That should give a clue that something isn't quite right.

I also showed the example links at the bottom -- let them cheat if
they're impatient. That way they can see what it really does and for the
reader who really wants to test his jQuery knowledge, he can just not
click on the link until he's done -- leave it up to the reader.

The expected technically correct result? Based on what? Selectors API
draft that I linked there?

Most of those examples should raise a SYNTAX_ERR exception.

The Selectors API[1] states:

| If the given group of selectors is invalid ([SELECT], section 13),
| the implementation must raise a SYNTAX_ERR exception

The Selector's API does not specify a context param, either.

I'm exhausted and worreid that my message may end up reflecting that in
the form of gibberish, so I'll leave it at that.

[1]<http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-api/#security>
From: John G Harris on 2 Jun 2010 05:33
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 at 22:00:50, in comp.lang.javascript, Garrett Smith
wrote:
>On 6/1/2010 9:36 PM, Joe Nine wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>>> The presence of QSA and non-QSA enabled browsers, as well as broken
>>
>> What's this QSA I see mentioned occasionally here? Google was no help
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=qsa
>
>QSA - document.querySelectorAll. Handy lingo when you need to say
>something in < 140 characters.

According to Wikipedia it stands for Qt Script for Applications, which
is a recently superseded ECMAScript engine.

It's better if the less common abbreviations are expanded at least once
in the threads using them.

John
--
John Harris
From: David Mark on 2 Jun 2010 06:25
On Jun 2, 12:36 am, Joe Nine <j...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > The presence of QSA and non-QSA enabled browsers, as well as broken
>
> What's this QSA I see mentioned occasionally here? Google was no helphttp://www.google.com/search?q=qsa

Basically, a little while back, browsers developed the ability to do
queries, without the help of dubious scripts. Unfortunately, they are
not compatible with the popular scripts. Somehow it was decided that
the best way for such scripts to proceed was to call QSA first and on
failures use the old incompatible code. The spin was that now the old
scripts were now faster than ever (e.g. "Sizzle" was born). The
reality is evidenced here:-

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

....which clearly demonstrates the differences between the non-QSA and
QSA versions of several popular scripts. This caused quite the public
outcry when I published it. Though much of it was directed at me
rather than the scripts. :) After all, why would I test the old
versions? Because the new ones use QSA for 90% of the tested queries
and AFAIK offer no way to turn it off. And as we have rehashed with
this quiz, testing in older browsers is quite revealing as well. Why
does this matter? Because it demonstrates the effects of time on
sniffy multi-browser scripts. In a year, today's browsers will be on
the scrap heap too and that's just silly.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: ECMA-262-5 in detail. Chapter 2. Strict Mode.
Next: Simple hack to get $500 to your home.