Getting "object expected" error in Windows XP only

[Rick]

I wrote the following code as part of a page where users can reorder a
list of items by highlighting an item in a list box and clicking an
"up" or "down" button to move the items around. The code below is for
the up and down buttons along with a reset button (which reloads the
list as it was originally) and a change button which applies the
changes. In Explorer and Safari for Mac, this code works flawlessly.
When I tested on Explorer in Windows XP, the lines for the up, down
and change buttons generated an "object expected" error. The code for
the reset button worked fine.


<input type="button" value="up"
onClick="javasc ript:moveSelect ion('up');" />
<input type="button" value="down"
onClick="javasc ript:moveSelect ion('down');" />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp;
<input type="button" onClick="javasc ript:window.loc ation.reload(); "
value="reset" />
<input type="button" onClick="javasc ript:sendit();" value="change"
/>


Barring a stupid oversight on my part (entirely within the realm of
possibility) I'm wondering if anyone knows if there is an specific bug
in Explorer XP that is causing this? Since the lines in question which
generate the error are calling functions, I think it's reasonable to
assume that's the issue. If so, is there a workaround or some
alternate method that will avoid this problem?

Thanks.

--Rick

[bruce]

Re: Getting &quot;object expected&quot; error in Windows XP only

inkswamp@hotmai l.com (Rick) wrote in message news:<b5104d91. 0405262251.333a b7b9@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> I wrote the following code as part of a page where users can reorder a
> list of items by highlighting an item in a list box and clicking an
> "up" or "down" button to move the items around. The code below is for
> the up and down buttons along with a reset button (which reloads the
> list as it was originally) and a change button which applies the
> changes. In Explorer and Safari for Mac, this code works flawlessly.
> When I tested on Explorer in Windows XP, the lines for the up, down
> and change buttons generated an "object expected" error. The code for
> the reset button worked fine.
>
>
> <input type="button" value="up"
> onClick="javasc ript:moveSelect ion('up');" />
> <input type="button" value="down"
> onClick="javasc ript:moveSelect ion('down');" />
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nb sp;
> <input type="button" onClick="javasc ript:window.loc ation.reload(); "
> value="reset" />
> <input type="button" onClick="javasc ript:sendit();" value="change"
> />
>
>
> Barring a stupid oversight on my part (entirely within the realm of
> possibility) I'm wondering if anyone knows if there is an specific bug
> in Explorer XP that is causing this? Since the lines in question which
> generate the error are calling functions, I think it's reasonable to
> assume that's the issue. If so, is there a workaround or some
> alternate method that will avoid this problem?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Rick[/color]


Probably an error in your moveSelectin routine, even though the
error may be stated as being in the calling statement.

[zurg]

Re: Getting &quot;object expected&quot; error in Windows XP only

In article <d3654513.04052 70538.2b4e1ea9@ posting.google. com>, bruce
<bruce_brodinsk y@glic.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Probably an error in your moveSelectin routine, even though the
> error may be stated as being in the calling statement.[/color]

It also happens with the call to sendit() so that threw me off. I
wonder if I'm doing something at the start of both of those routines
that's causing IE on XP to choke. It's probably what's happening. I'll
look into it. Thanks.

Damn frustrating that IE on the Mac and XP have apparently different
implementations of Javascript.

[Andrew Thompson]

Re: Getting &quot;object expected&quot; error in Windows XP only

On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:42:55 GMT, zurg wrote:
[color=blue]
> Damn frustrating that IE on the Mac and XP have apparently different
> implementations of Javascript.[/color]

add, HTML, CSS, Java..

IE is a bottomless pit of woe for
web designers. Not only does it
break standards to which MS contributed,
but each IE implementation seems to break
them in subtly different ways. :-/

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

[bruce]

Re: Getting &quot;object expected&quot; error in Windows XP only

Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites@www .invalid> wrote in message news:<1bz1s4vsn saxz$.1boohr0ke fdl4$.dlg@40tud e.net>...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:42:55 GMT, zurg wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Damn frustrating that IE on the Mac and XP have apparently different
> > implementations of Javascript.[/color]
>
> add, HTML, CSS, Java..
>
> IE is a bottomless pit of woe for
> web designers. Not only does it
> break standards to which MS contributed,
> but each IE implementation seems to break
> them in subtly different ways. :-/[/color]


I beg to disagree. We have found IE to be the most consistent and
backwards-compatible of the browsers. We long ago discarded Netscape
as an option, due to the fact that each subsequent release seemed to
break all our code.

[Lee]

Re: Getting &quot;object expected&quot; error in Windows XP only

bruce said:[color=blue]
>
>Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites@www .invalid> wrote in message
>news:<1bz1s4vs nsaxz$.1boohr0k efdl4$.dlg@40tu de.net>...[color=green]
>> On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:42:55 GMT, zurg wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Damn frustrating that IE on the Mac and XP have apparently different
>> > implementations of Javascript.[/color]
>>
>> add, HTML, CSS, Java..
>>
>> IE is a bottomless pit of woe for
>> web designers. Not only does it
>> break standards to which MS contributed,
>> but each IE implementation seems to break
>> them in subtly different ways. :-/[/color]
>
>
>I beg to disagree. We have found IE to be the most consistent and
>backwards-compatible of the browsers. We long ago discarded Netscape
>as an option, due to the fact that each subsequent release seemed to
>break all our code.[/color]

Netscape 4 was written before the standard was finalized, so the
upgrade from 4 to 6 was a significant change, and a significant
improvement. If you discarded Netscape because of that, you've
made a horrible mistake.

Favoring backwards-compatibility over progress is a trap.