[thelist] Wanted: the definitive fool-proof mouseover JavaScript

[Joe Crawford]

".jeff" wrote:
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : Jeff, if the scripts performed without errors on
> : all the browsers you suggest, would you accept it
> : was a viable alternative to testing for
> : document.images?
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> i think i'd still lean towards object detection as being more accurate.
> doing detection based on js version makes me feel dirty and want to take a
> bath in boiling water.

*lol*

(And I never "lol").

I already expressed myself at length on this. And as far as "IE3" is
concerned - I think it's even worse than that. IE3.*/Mac and IE3.*/Win
were just as different then as IE5/Mac IE5/Windows are - so you get an
even more complex beast for IE3.

Now, mind you, most of these browsers are part of the fossil record, but
I'm trying to be complete. :-)

Anyway, it seems like /everything/ that is good and true and rational in
web development seems to point to object detection as the way to think
about your scripting.

Basing programming decisions on JavaScript1.1, or JavaScript1.2 being
equivalent across browsers, platforms, and versions just reminds me of
that game jenga. Maybe you can stack that tower high, and maybe it'll
meet your needs, but you'll never get that building as tall as you will
by building on a nice solid foundation of object detection. <<Insert
'Three Little Pigs' metaphor here>> <<insert building on sand vs.
building on rock metaphor here>>.

Aside: is this horse now beaten to death? ;-P

Best regards,

	Joe "how many metaphors can that boy mix?" Crawford
	<http://artlung.com/>
-- 
...................  Joe Crawford \\ Web Design & Development
.....  mailto:jcrawford at avencom.com \\ http://www.avencom.com
.... San Diego \\ CA \\ USA \\ AVENCOM: Set Your Sites Higher