[Javascript] Microsoft proprietary DOM vs Standards (Was: IE work-a-round question (re: checkbox

Sat Apr 19 04:38:40 CDT 2008

> From: david at dorward.me.uk> To: javascript at lists.evolt.org> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:20:55 +0100> Subject: Re: [Javascript] Microsoft proprietary DOM vs Standards (Was: IE work-a-round question (re: checkbox> > > There is a VERY significant difference between "A decade old" which > the above statement uses and "A decade older then > document.getElementById", which your email of 16 April 2008 06:02:07 > BST uses.

True!But I think you somehow manage to miss my point. > > > Generating global variables, which might conflict with built ins,
> <div id="window">> <div id="document">> <div id="alert">

A set of "reserved words" will never sieze to exist. There will allways be a setof some reserved words, so this is simply an overreaction. If a coder was thateager to name a portion of his text with such a fullish name as "window" or "alert", simply by changing the "window" with "Window" or "alert" with "Alert"would be more than satisfying. -One of the reasons why js is casse sensitive.

> > > DOM 1 reached recommendation status in 1998> >> > Sorry but I don't recall if it's first recommendation included the > > "document.getElemen..."> > statement in its apearence.> If you don't recall, then why not look?> http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/level-one-html.html#ID-36113835
I was being educated.Because I already did a re-check while writting! Please view the: http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/core.html > > It was DOM Level 2 that invented e different statement for> > the same purpose and reached recommendation status only a month > > before 2001.> > Incorrect, see above.

Correct all the way! It was a re-invetnion of the wheel. It was "getElementsByTagName" that was proposed in Level 1 not the ID. To be more exact, this link (se below), will navigate you strait to the paragraph of our matter in discussion,

http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/core.html#ID-getElBId

same page as the above. Where it explicitely states: "getElementById introduced in DOM Level 2" This, -once again - proves that "document.getElementById" is Level 2, and was ~introduced~ only a month before 2001 respectively.

> > Eventhough FX didn't hesitate to implement it, but did it maliciously.> Firefox implemented the standard ... maliciously. That makes no sense > whatsoever.
The "it" language var cited above meant "reference by ID", I never said "FX implemented the standard",
why do you alter my words? -So it does make sense!

> > Same goes with the famous .innerHTML.> > Firefox implemented innerHTML because lots of websites used it > (because Microsoft implemented instead of promoting the standard, and > IE was commonly used). I don't see any maliciousness there either. I > don't see Firefox's implementation breaking when you edit the inside > of tables either.

O really! Why did FX implement the NON-STANDARD innerHTML?Why did FX support the NON-STANDARD reference by ID? While providing error mesage:"Element rreferenced by Name/ID use standard getElementById() instead".I'ts obviously malicious!
Today this message doesn't turn your Error Console button into red, but it used to.And what about innerHTML, it doesn't even yeld a soft error nor a warnig message!
Does it mean that innerHTML has become a standard?!!FX never met a W3C standards and never will. It's a pure demagogy and you know that. > > > It lent itself to write-only code, they didn't consult with anyone> > > before implementing it, the standards group (including Microsoft) > > came> > > up with something better.> >> > :) Like What?> > document.getElementById

Let's see...

> > And what do you understand with "write-only"?
> That when someone comes along to read the code, it is not obvious > where the variable is being declared (since it is generated by being > associated with an HTML document, not from within the script itself). > This results in code which is hard to edit.

Nonsense...Complete nonsense.
First of, -where do you look before assigning your vars? Or do you arbitrarily try toassing whatever comes to your mind, hopping that it will call the object you are aiming to, 
by guess or something?

"MyElement" is not a variable, it's the actuall object you are referrening to, -and there will be no guess nor any place for confussion.That way you can never go wrong about.
On contrast, what makes the element referrencing a real pain is a completely independent 
naming convention of vars that refer to them.

MyElement.width="value" compared to: var anyName = document.getElementById("MyElement").width="value"
is actually what makes it almost impossible to edit some one else's document. You'll have to digg in three different places to find out what is the correct id/name of the element referred from this var; where was it declared; find the original name/id of it; find it in HTML; check if there is everything right than go through CSS to find that there was some banal typing error causing your function to fail or to act as not expected.

> > What do you mean with "they didn't consult with anyone"?> > That they implemented it rather then proposing it to the standards > group that they are, and were, a member of.

I allready pointed out that IE4 was allready out and running for thee long coding years before they even came up with any proposal.
Douring the time you are talking about, W3C was bussy cleaning the mess they've created with the GIF format and pattents and were intensely preocupied with PNG developement. They didn't even turn 
their eyes on the matters we are talking about.  > > Do you understand that this acusation is a direct answer to the> > question: -Who was, and still is hollding up the web???> > I don't really care what it is in answer to. It is packed full of > factual errors.> 
As we can clearly see, the facts are all in the right place. 

> > Don't forget that it was only in December 1997 that HTML 4.0 added > > support for tables.> > Can you imagine? -Tables!> > Right. Yes. HTML 4.0. Of course. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#table> > The whole situation with HTML at the time was a mess. It didn't help > that browser vendors ran around implementing <font>, <blink> and > <marquee> instead of trying to develop something good. So HTML 3 was > scrapped and HTML 3.2 came along to document what they had some up with.
So, as you see, they were not capable of even dealing with such a fundamental need like tablesat the time, but you expect them to address things like how to manipulate the DOM?! > > W3C recommended "document.getElement" a month before 2001, while> > IE4-was allready three years old and running.> > Incorrect, see above.

Correct all the way, as you can see from above too. -They should have used the same policy as they did with other coding practices and embrace what was allready a standard in the coding "world". If itweren't for them taking sides...
For more than three years, coders around the world got used to "MyElement" solution with no alternative recommendation. Accusing IE for being non-compliant is a pure demagogy. 

One can not write you a ticket for exceeding speed-limit yesterday while driving 70mph, simply because 
today the speed limit for that road is reduced to 60mph by God himself, shortly known as W3C & his felow 
cancelor FX.

> > So it was, still is, and allways will be, W3C.

Mean time, while W3C was holding back the web, coders turned to using Flash and other plugin alternativesfilling the vacuume they (W3C) almost puposedly created. In 2001 flash couldn't do anything more fancier 
than IE4.1 filters could do, -today html and scripting has become a simple tool for hidding url's of flash 
content from pages that every day more and more rely on third party plugins. There are 30% of pages completely 
built in flash. Other 40% are hybrids, and all because W3C is still holding back the web...

I salute them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                        Troy III                            progressive art enterprise~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________________________________________________
Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic.
http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51N1653A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.evolt.org/pipermail/javascript/attachments/20080419/430e59d8/attachment.htm>