[thelist] xml in javascript ie does show it
Jeff Howden
jeff at jeffhowden.com
Wed Oct 26 16:22:05 CDT 2005
Hi,
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: gruppenfreizeit
> [mailto:postmeister at gruppenfreizeit.com]
>
> > The TBODY element is *not* a useless element. It has
> > semantic significance. Whether or not you like the
> > extra step isn't important. What matters is that IE
> > gets this correct and Mozilla does not.
>
> That's not true. It's a fact: Mozilla is that gratefull
> and supports both. And I tried the tbody elment to
> style another table. It's really useless.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
It's *not* useless. The spec () *requires* it. Just admit you're both
wrong and completely lacking the appropriate knowledge necessary to defend
your position.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > > el.setAttribute("style"
> > > , "color:black;paddingRight:5px;...")
> > >
> > > instead of
> > >
> > > el.style.color="black"
> > > el.style.paddingRight="5px"
> >
> > Yes, I see. However, I personally prefer the second
> > method as it's much more clear what's going on.
>
> I don't get it. It's a lot more typing and the first
> method is clear.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Actually, anybody will tell you that the second method is more clear as
individual properties and their values are broken out onto separate lines.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> But as I've written above:
> It's a fact: Mozilla is that gratefull and supports
> both.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Agreed, Mozilla has one up on IE in that regard.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> var win=window.open(url,"win"+x, "dependent=yes,...
> That's truely enough for Mozilla.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
That is a non-standard extension to ECMAScript.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> x.createElement("INPUT");
> x.setAttribute("TYPE","checkbox");
>
> It's simple and intuitiv to programm with Mozilla.
> IE returns a text input.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Yes, another bug with IE. However, it's avoidable and more readable.
x.createElement('INPUT');
x.type = 'checkbox';
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> In my opion Mozilla is real better for
> programming. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
It's purely a matter of opinion. There are a myriad of things one can code
easily and intuitively in IE that require lots of complicated code, not to
mention the *huge* difference in reference material available.
With less than 10% marketshare it really doesn't matter though, now does it?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] If they would present a better 3d design, everyone
> will change. [...]
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
You *really* have no clue why IE has marketshare and Mozilla does not. The
average user does *not* care about 3d design, open source zealotry, or "the
browser wars". All they care about is getting access to information.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] That's the big advantage of IE.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
No, the big advantage is that it's already installed on every machine sold
with Windows.
[>] Jeff Howden
jeff at jeffhowden.com
http://jeffhowden.com/
More information about the thelist
mailing list