Ok, 3 replies all saying basically the same thing. I'll reply to yours and link the comment to the others.
Comments inline.
1. Opera hates innnerHTML. So generating options for a select list and then setting it using innerHTML means opera doesn't work.
You should hate innerHTML too. It's not part of any W3C standard, and anything it does can be done just as well with DOM (which is a standard).
As a standards advocate I should hate it. However as a web programmer I love it. In the particular thing I was working on, I was generating a option list server side (one which would be used in multiple instances) and using innerHTML to add it to the select list. Instead I now need to generate a javascript array server side, and for each of those items added I need to loop through the array adding the options.
Effectively after I discovered this issue (there were other issues elsewhere with innerHtml) I had to add ~250 lines of code. I;m not whinging particularly about the addition of 250 lines of code, but it also made the code slower and less maintainable.
You tell me, which of these two examples is more readable (code untested & off the top of my head)? example 1: document.getElementById('foo').innerHTML = 'Hi there';
example 2: var span = document.createElement('SPAN'); span.className = 'cls'; span.appendTextNode('Hi'); document.getElementById('foo').appendChild(span); span.appendTextNode(' there');
Please don't argue that innerHTML is somehow equivalent to eval or similar evil functions to execute generated code. HTML is a formatting language.
Opera doesn't like generated elements and doesn't treat them in the same way as elements that were part of the page. For example if you add a select and some options to a page using javascript, Opera will not let you set any of the options as selected.
Once again, seems like you messed up your code somewhere. Care to show the JavaScript snippet you used so we could tell you what precisely you did wrong (and how to do it right, so it works everywhere)?.
I think not. This code was tested against everything that is less than 5 years old and worked for all of them except for Opera.
I've just spent 10 minutes trying to build an example of the javascript that didn't work. In the trivial example I generated it did work, which was a surprise. It does consistently fail the application though. The javascript is part of ~1000 lines of code, so I am going to see if I can reduce it to something smaller while still showing the error.
So I'll get back to you on that one.
Visual consistency. Opera just doesn't have it between versions.
If you keep your config files from version to version, you'll get all the consistency you want. Yes, small things do break when a new major version is released. But by and large, I still use the UI I've set up for Opera 7 ages ago without any serious changes.
OK. But frankly I've decided I'm not going to bothered making sure that my work looks as good in Opera as it does in IE & Gecko. Even Khtml/Safari is higher on my list than Opera.
On a slightly different note. I've just decided to drop support for Opera 7. I discovered that some of the javascript in the page I was working on can crash the browser. The code was nothing too out of the ordinary, a button at the end of a row in a table to delete the row.
One has 994 days of uptime, and the other has, as of last week, 1190 days. The longer running of the two - DAEDALUS - runs close to 75% load from 6am-6pm, 5 days a week.
And unpatched. IIRC most of the "patch Tuesdays" for the past couple of years have involved a reboot.
I'm a web programmer and we run a site that supports opera 7+, IE5+, anything Gecko, Safari 1.2+. Opera is a bitch when it comes to writing javascript. Let me count the problems (BTW this is for the latest version):
1. Opera hates innnerHTML. So generating options for a select list and then setting it using innerHTML means opera doesn't work.
2. Opera doesn't like generated elements and doesn't treat them in the same way as elements that were part of the page. For example if you add a select and some options to a page using javascript, Opera will not let you set any of the options as selected.
3. Visual consistency. Opera just doesn't have it between versions.
Opera has cost me I'd guess about 10 hours sleep this week.
Hey thanks for the heads up. We were considering moving to VS.Net 2005. More to the point, we were considering.net 2.0. I've heard a few horror stories though.
The key driver for us has been the introduction of generics. Aside, what is with that? Why didn't they just call them templates and add into in 1.0/1.1?
I believe that our Aussie friends, who banned guns a few years back, experienced an increase in violent crime--after all, when the good people can't defend themselves, the bad are emboldened.
That has not been the Australian experience. Before the changes to the gun laws people did not have firearms for self-defence. The rise in crime would have to be explained by other means.
...which is the single greatest achievement of the 20th century (yes, bigger even than World War II)
I would suggest that you need to go back and study a little more history.
1. I would hardly call defeating the USSR a greater achievement than winning WWII. I'd say the defeat of Nazi Germany was the greatest achievement of the 20th century.
2. The USSR collapsed under its own weight. Reagan just happened to be there at the time.
Encouraging them to learn and entertaining them are not the same thing.
And I never said that they were.
Kids need to be challenged, that's what motivates a person to excel.
Excellent. I'll just wake my wife and tell her she can tell her year 2 (primary) class tomorrow they can throw away all their normal work: they are starting calculus. I call that a challenge for year 2 students. Wait, that might not work so well. I think she might be angry if I wake her, but every other part of the idea sounds peachy.
Entertainment only motivates a person to be fed.
Only that? Of course people only have simple motivations for what they do.
Entertainment can work well as a motivation if it is used with other elements. Entertainment may be something that makes people interested in learning.
And some people apply their faulty memory of their childhood and apply it to current situations.
Besides, does the fact that some children don't want to learn mean that we shouldn't make an attempt to encourage them to learn? That we should critically analyse teaching methods to improve them?
Don't be an idiot. Do you think kids really want to learn? Certainly that can be a motivator but that is no reason not to make it entertaining at the same time.
My wife is just completing a masters in education and from what I have picked up from her, I can say that ensuring that education is interesting is important part of education. It is part of effective communication.
I wanted to email these "educational" clips to everyone in my class then I'd have some trouble. but should I really be able to do those things anyway?
A while ago I wanted to play a particular song to a youth group. The only problem was that there was a language issue with the song. However the song was an MP3 (which I had ripped from a CD I bought) I was able to edit the song to blank out the relevant half second.
I get your point. And on another point I would agree with you. However, saying that something can be created from nothing doesn't just fly in the face of CoE/CoM, it invalidates all science to date.
It can overturn every single law of science as we know it. It is a wild card. The results of every experiment, every observation can be invalidated because matter or energy could have been added. Using Newtonian physics as an example and ignoring relativity for the moment, you might have measured the velocity of an object, but hey if energy or matter were added to the object your observations are wrong. It strikes to the heart of the fundimental assumption of science: that the universe is orderly.
In one sense, I agree. In many cases a new discovery is often dismissed because it doesn't match current models/views. Also I recognise that we don't understand everything and that current theory's may be incorrect.
I'll accept new ways of generating energy (including from matter), because they are largely conversions. However anything that involves the creation of matter or energy is completely wrong. It is either that or we might was well throw out all science since the beginning of time.
I believe that is the case. However the meat of the parent comment was that Office was so tightly tied to windows that it would be impossible release a linux version. Given that OS X is BSD, I imagine that a linux version would technically feasible.
Free energy is the scientific community's equivalent to the "winning the lottery" dream. The odds against it actually happening (to you) are insanely long.
But the payoff is so huge that the speculation is fun. How would our lives change? What would we do with it all? What COULD we do with it all?
It isn't like buying a lottery ticket. A lottery can have a winner. Nobody will ever work out how to generate free energy
But I'll read the articles for the same reason I occasionally buy a 1$ ticket.
Because you are bad at science (in the case of the lottery ticket, maths)?
Why on earth are you defending these people all over the place sb?
Yes, new discoveries don't always have the support of the scientific community. Sure.
But what these people are claiming is that something can be created from nothing. This is way out of line. Anyone can pick up the problem with this. If they had found a new method for generating energy that harnessed something we were not aware of, fine. Claiming that energy can be created from nothing is patently idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
see reply to sibling.
Yes, the application's visual consistency is the primary factor for evaluating its standards-compliance.
Maybe not but it is primary factor in deciding whether to make the effort to support it.
see reply to sibling.
Comments inline.
As a standards advocate I should hate it. However as a web programmer I love it. In the particular thing I was working on, I was generating a option list server side (one which would be used in multiple instances) and using innerHTML to add it to the select list. Instead I now need to generate a javascript array server side, and for each of those items added I need to loop through the array adding the options.
Effectively after I discovered this issue (there were other issues elsewhere with innerHtml) I had to add ~250 lines of code. I;m not whinging particularly about the addition of 250 lines of code, but it also made the code slower and less maintainable.
You tell me, which of these two examples is more readable (code untested & off the top of my head)?
example 1:
document.getElementById('foo').innerHTML = 'Hi there';
example 2:
var span = document.createElement('SPAN');
span.className = 'cls';
span.appendTextNode('Hi');
document.getElementById('foo').appendChild(span);
span.appendTextNode(' there');
Please don't argue that innerHTML is somehow equivalent to eval or similar evil functions to execute generated code. HTML is a formatting language.
I think not. This code was tested against everything that is less than 5 years old and worked for all of them except for Opera.
I've just spent 10 minutes trying to build an example of the javascript that didn't work. In the trivial example I generated it did work, which was a surprise. It does consistently fail the application though. The javascript is part of ~1000 lines of code, so I am going to see if I can reduce it to something smaller while still showing the error.
So I'll get back to you on that one.
OK. But frankly I've decided I'm not going to bothered making sure that my work looks as good in Opera as it does in IE & Gecko. Even Khtml/Safari is higher on my list than Opera.
On a slightly different note. I've just decided to drop support for Opera 7. I discovered that some of the javascript in the page I was working on can crash the browser. The code was nothing too out of the ordinary, a button at the end of a row in a table to delete the row.
One has 994 days of uptime, and the other has, as of last week, 1190 days. The longer running of the two - DAEDALUS - runs close to 75% load from 6am-6pm, 5 days a week.
And unpatched. IIRC most of the "patch Tuesdays" for the past couple of years have involved a reboot.
Opera is rubbish. I loathe Opera.
I'm a web programmer and we run a site that supports opera 7+, IE5+, anything Gecko, Safari 1.2+. Opera is a bitch when it comes to writing javascript. Let me count the problems (BTW this is for the latest version):
1. Opera hates innnerHTML. So generating options for a select list and then setting it using innerHTML means opera doesn't work.
2. Opera doesn't like generated elements and doesn't treat them in the same way as elements that were part of the page. For example if you add a select and some options to a page using javascript, Opera will not let you set any of the options as selected.
3. Visual consistency. Opera just doesn't have it between versions.
Opera has cost me I'd guess about 10 hours sleep this week.
I'm 6'4. How do I become short?
Hey thanks for the heads up. We were considering moving to VS.Net 2005. More to the point, we were considering .net 2.0. I've heard a few horror stories though.
The key driver for us has been the introduction of generics. Aside, what is with that? Why didn't they just call them templates and add into in 1.0/1.1?
I really do hope that you are one of the people who gets fired one of these days. I think it might be an educational experience.
I believe that our Aussie friends, who banned guns a few years back, experienced an increase in violent crime--after all, when the good people can't defend themselves, the bad are emboldened.
That has not been the Australian experience. Before the changes to the gun laws people did not have firearms for self-defence. The rise in crime would have to be explained by other means.
It doesn't sound very smart, crashing into the moon. Surely missing it would be a better idea.
...which is the single greatest achievement of the 20th century (yes, bigger even than World War II)
I would suggest that you need to go back and study a little more history.
1. I would hardly call defeating the USSR a greater achievement than winning WWII. I'd say the defeat of Nazi Germany was the greatest achievement of the 20th century.
2. The USSR collapsed under its own weight. Reagan just happened to be there at the time.
Encouraging them to learn and entertaining them are not the same thing.
And I never said that they were.
Kids need to be challenged, that's what motivates a person to excel.
Excellent. I'll just wake my wife and tell her she can tell her year 2 (primary) class tomorrow they can throw away all their normal work: they are starting calculus. I call that a challenge for year 2 students. Wait, that might not work so well. I think she might be angry if I wake her, but every other part of the idea sounds peachy.
Entertainment only motivates a person to be fed.
Only that? Of course people only have simple motivations for what they do.
Entertainment can work well as a motivation if it is used with other elements. Entertainment may be something that makes people interested in learning.
And some people apply their faulty memory of their childhood and apply it to current situations.
Besides, does the fact that some children don't want to learn mean that we shouldn't make an attempt to encourage them to learn? That we should critically analyse teaching methods to improve them?
Rubbish.
It hampers it in ways like this
Don't be an idiot. Do you think kids really want to learn? Certainly that can be a motivator but that is no reason not to make it entertaining at the same time.
My wife is just completing a masters in education and from what I have picked up from her, I can say that ensuring that education is interesting is important part of education. It is part of effective communication.
A while ago I wanted to play a particular song to a youth group. The only problem was that there was a language issue with the song. However the song was an MP3 (which I had ripped from a CD I bought) I was able to edit the song to blank out the relevant half second.
Honestly I am not sure why all the keyboards and mice are USB now...
KVM.
Ready your history. Examine how IBM, Apple, and yes, HP recovered from their missteps.
But Sun can't fire Carly, they never hired her.
Thanks for the reply.
I get your point. And on another point I would agree with you. However, saying that something can be created from nothing doesn't just fly in the face of CoE/CoM, it invalidates all science to date.
It can overturn every single law of science as we know it. It is a wild card. The results of every experiment, every observation can be invalidated because matter or energy could have been added. Using Newtonian physics as an example and ignoring relativity for the moment, you might have measured the velocity of an object, but hey if energy or matter were added to the object your observations are wrong. It strikes to the heart of the fundimental assumption of science: that the universe is orderly.
In one sense, I agree. In many cases a new discovery is often dismissed because it doesn't match current models/views. Also I recognise that we don't understand everything and that current theory's may be incorrect.
I'll accept new ways of generating energy (including from matter), because they are largely conversions. However anything that involves the creation of matter or energy is completely wrong. It is either that or we might was well throw out all science since the beginning of time.
But they are happy hyperactive squirrels on crack.
I'm afraid it's you who needs to take another Science 101 refresher. (I'm a scientist.)
Hey I'm a scientist too. In fact I am the winner of dozens of nobel prizes. Wait a minute, no I'm not. And you are just an AC.
I believe that is the case. However the meat of the parent comment was that Office was so tightly tied to windows that it would be impossible release a linux version. Given that OS X is BSD, I imagine that a linux version would technically feasible.
One of the most impressive groups I've encountered in my quest for legitimate free energy technlogy.
Why limit it to just legitimate free energy? Is illegitimate free energy easier to get?
Free energy is the scientific community's equivalent to the "winning the lottery" dream. The odds against it actually happening (to you) are insanely long.
But the payoff is so huge that the speculation is fun. How would our lives change? What would we do with it all? What COULD we do with it all?
It isn't like buying a lottery ticket. A lottery can have a winner. Nobody will ever work out how to generate free energy
But I'll read the articles for the same reason I occasionally buy a 1$ ticket.
Because you are bad at science (in the case of the lottery ticket, maths)?
Why on earth are you defending these people all over the place sb?
Yes, new discoveries don't always have the support of the scientific community. Sure.
But what these people are claiming is that something can be created from nothing. This is way out of line. Anyone can pick up the problem with this. If they had found a new method for generating energy that harnessed something we were not aware of, fine. Claiming that energy can be created from nothing is patently idiotic.