altering text with javascript

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: altering text with javascript

Jim Ley wrote:
[color=blue]
> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:[color=green]
>> Robert wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> 2) There is no need for javascript: in an event handler. Javascript is
>>> assumed in all event handler such as onclick.[/color]
>>
>> No, it is not. In fact, it is only where the default scripting language
>> is J(ava)Script.[/color]
>
> Which is in all user agents that assume a default.[/color]

That is a bold statement. You have tested all user agents in questions, all
versions of them with all OSes on all platforms? If not, you should be
more careful with generalizations like "all".
[color=blue][color=green]
>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">[/color]
>
> This bogus,[/color]

It is not bogus.
[color=blue]
> and until the HTML WG respond to the comments against it,
> it doesn't even have much weight of standard,[/color]

The exact opposite is true. It has much weight of a standard until there
is an official consensus among the HTML WG that it should be removed from
or altered in the HTML 4.01 Specification:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.2.1>
[color=blue]
> it's certainly not an http-equiv header.[/color]

(There is no "http-equiv" header.) It is true that "Content-Script-Type"
is not an HTTP/1.0 or HTTP/1.1 header, but that does not invalidate the
Recommendation. There is no "text/javascript" MIME media type registered
at IANA, for example, however it is recommended, in this group too, to use
it because there is not a widely supported alternative.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>To workaround this bug, M$ has introduced the abuse of labels in event
>>handler attribute values to specify the scripting language.[/color]
>
> This predates the HTML WG's bogosity.[/color]

That does not matter here.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> However, this only works in IE and is a proprietary approach that should
>> not be pursued on the Web.[/color]
>
> Agreed, but it's harmless,[/color]

It is not. A script engine that does not support labels will yield a syntax
script error here. Since the used script engine is an unknown factor on
the Web, it cannot be recommended to pursue that proprietary approach.
[color=blue]
> [...] but that's just bogus irrelevance.[/color]

(Script) Errors that can be avoided are never irrelevant.


PointedEars
--
No matter who you vote for, government always wins.

[Jim Ley]

Re: altering text with javascript

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:01:53 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@we b.de> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> and until the HTML WG respond to the comments against it,
>> it doesn't even have much weight of standard,[/color]
>
>The exact opposite is true. It has much weight of a standard until there
>is an official consensus among the HTML WG that it should be removed from
>or altered in the HTML 4.01 Specification:[/color]

No, there is an open issue against it, the WG must respond to issues
in their specifications, they have not responded to this one in many
months, this means that there is clearly not consensus (if there was,
they'd've been able to respond to the issue instantly)
[color=blue]
>(There is no "http-equiv" header.) It is true that "Content-Script-Type"
>is not an HTTP/1.0 or HTTP/1.1 header, but that does not invalidate the
>Recommendation .[/color]

What Recommendation? It's a bogus header, that achieves nothing - the
HTML WG will not respond to comments despite being required to (and
yes there's a problem in W3 Process that doesn't put a time limit on
responses - I have an issue against that too, currently 11 months
old...)

The HTML WG did not have the required 1 implementation of the header
at the time of specification, it's bogus.
[color=blue]
> There is no "text/javascript" MIME media type registered
>at IANA, for example, however it is recommended, in this group too, to use
>it because there is not a widely supported alternative.[/color]

Because there's a good reason for this, there is no reason to include
the bogus header.
[color=blue]
>It is not. A script engine that does not support labels will yield a syntax
>script error here.[/color]

So that would be a non ECMAScript conformant script engine, which are
the only things relevant to default intrinsic events, this is not a
problem.

Bogus, crap reccomendations are not things to promote, they lock in
poor choices, such as the meta header you're discussing, don't blindly
support bad decisions, especially ones with open issues against like
this.

Jim.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: altering text with javascript

Jim Ley wrote:
[color=blue]
> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> and until the HTML WG respond to the comments against it,
>>> it doesn't even have much weight of standard,[/color]
>>
>> The exact opposite is true. It has much weight of a standard until there
>> is an official consensus among the HTML WG that it should be removed from
>> or altered in the HTML 4.01 Specification:[/color]
>
> [...] they have not responded to this one in many months, this means that
> there is clearly not consensus [...][/color]

Exactly, and because of that what the HTML 4.01 Specification says
is still kind of a standard. Thank you for proving me right.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> (There is no "http-equiv" header.) It is true that "Content-Script-Type"
>> is not an HTTP/1.0 or HTTP/1.1 header, but that does not invalidate the
>> Recommendation.[/color]
>
> What Recommendation?[/color]

The HTML 4.01 Recommendation and the section of it I am referring to the
whole time.
[color=blue]
> It's a bogus header, that achieves nothing -[/color]

Do you have *any* strong proof for that bold statement? If not, I suggest
you be still, for it could be perceived as a nonsensical statement if
repeated.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> There is no "text/javascript" MIME media type registered
>> at IANA, for example, however it is recommended, in this group too, to us
>> eit because there is not a widely supported alternative.[/color]
>
> Because there's a good reason for this, there is no reason to include
> the bogus header.[/color]

You are missing the point, i.e. that there are widely used features that
are not standardized or registered but work anyway because they are widely
supported as well.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> It is not. A script engine that does not support labels will yield a
>> syntax script error here.[/color]
>
> So that would be a non ECMAScript conformant script engine, [...][/color]

Wrong. Labels (or, more precisely, labelled statements; in the
ECMAScript grammar: LabelledStateme nts) have been introduced in
ECMAScript 3. There have been two more editions prior without
that feature which compliant scripting languages and engines are
based upon. And there have been several JavaScript and JScript
language versions that did not provide the feature.


PointedEars
--
It's not what the W3C standard specifies. But seamonkey see, seamonkey do.

[Jim Ley]

Re: altering text with javascript

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:36:37 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@we b.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jim Ley wrote:
>[color=green]
>> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>> and until the HTML WG respond to the comments against it,
>>>> it doesn't even have much weight of standard,
>>>
>>> The exact opposite is true. It has much weight of a standard until there
>>> is an official consensus among the HTML WG that it should be removed from
>>> or altered in the HTML 4.01 Specification:[/color]
>>
>> [...] they have not responded to this one in many months, this means that
>> there is clearly not consensus [...][/color]
>
>Exactly, and because of that what the HTML 4.01 Specification says
>is still kind of a standard. Thank you for proving me right.[/color]

No, since if that was the case, responding to the issue would've been
trivial, and wouldn't've taken so long.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> It's a bogus header, that achieves nothing -[/color]
>
>Do you have *any* strong proof for that bold statement?[/color]

Proof of what, that's bogus, I can't see what I could provide other
than the absence of the WG's explanation in response of the issues
against it, of that it achieves nothing, sure the fact that all but an
insignificant minority of pages don't have it and they all work in all
user agents.
[color=blue]
>You are missing the point, i.e. that there are widely used features that
>are not standardized or registered but work anyway because they are widely
>supported as well.[/color]

Yep, such as javascript being the default script language for
intrinsic events.
[color=blue]
>It's not what the W3C standard specifies. But seamonkey see, seamonkey do.[/color]

An interesting sig. Given that you're arguing for blinding following
a W3C standard when it has no benefit, and I'm saying, follow the
de-facto standard.

Jim.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: altering text with javascript

Jim Ley wrote:
[color=blue]
> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:[color=green]
>> Jim Ley wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
>>>>> and until the HTML WG respond to the comments against it,
>>>>> it doesn't even have much weight of standard,
>>>> The exact opposite is true. It has much weight of a standard until
>>>> there is an official consensus among the HTML WG that it should be
>>>> removed from or altered in the HTML 4.01 Specification:
>>> [...] they have not responded to this one in many months, this means
>>> [that
>>> there is clearly not consensus [...][/color]
>> Exactly, and because of that what the HTML 4.01 Specification says
>> is still kind of a standard. Thank you for proving me right.[/color]
>
> No, since if that was the case, responding to the issue would've been
> trivial, and wouldn't've taken so long.[/color]

You are hedging. There is no official consensus among the WG and so the
last edition of the HTML 4.01 Specification is the only valid reference
on this topic.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> It's a bogus header, that achieves nothing -[/color]
>> Do you have *any* strong proof for that bold statement?[/color]
>
> Proof of what, that's bogus, [...][/color]

Yes, strong proof of that, exactly. That would include a long list of
positive UA tests, but then I don't expect you to ever provide it.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You are missing the point, i.e. that there are widely used features that
>> are not standardized or registered but work anyway because they are
>> widely supported as well.[/color]
>
> Yep, such as javascript being the default script language for
> intrinsic events.[/color]

No, that depends on the UA.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> It's not what the W3C standard specifies. But seamonkey see, seamonkey
>> do.[/color]
>
> An interesting sig. Given that you're arguing for blinding following
> a W3C standard when it has no benefit,[/color]

1. I am not arguing for blinding following a W3C standard (better: a W3C
Recommendation) . If you would have read my posting(s) thoroughly, you
would have known. For example, I disregard the Recommendation' s section
that says "script" element's content should be commented out, for I know
that there is no (quasi-)standards compliant HTML UA out there that does
not support the "script" element (as I have proven prior.)

2. That this feature does not have a benefit remains to be proven.
Since you state that it does not have one, you are the one to prove it.
If you cannot prove it or you are not willing to do so, your statement
remains false, and: By repeating false statements (over and over again)
they do not become more true. [psf 4.18] Period.
[color=blue]
> and I'm saying, follow the de-facto standard.[/color]

Which I do in this case. The (HTML 4.01) Recommendation is
the de-facto standard; your unproved allegations are not.


PointedEars
--
Question: How do you fix a bug? Is it A) Step on it. B) Delete random lines
of code. C) Buy a new computer. or D) Whats a bug?. Is that your final
answer?

[Jim Ley]

Re: altering text with javascript

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:13:13 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@we b.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
>You are hedging. There is no official consensus among the WG and so the
>last edition of the HTML 4.01 Specification is the only valid reference
>on this topic.[/color]

No, that's the point of an issue against a specification - the
specification isn't clear, or is dubious in its nature etc. hence the
issue - The element is suspect until the issue is resolved. (like a
law that is being reviewed by a constitutional court, the law is
suspect)
[color=blue]
>Yes, strong proof of that, exactly. That would include a long list of
>positive UA tests, but then I don't expect you to ever provide it.[/color]

Lots of UA tests wouldn't prove it, there'd always be another UA, so
that proof method wouldn't be acceptable to me.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Yep, such as javascript being the default script language for
>> intrinsic events.[/color]
>
>No, that depends on the UA.[/color]

No it does not! Or prove it... (please don't actually bother...)

Jim.

[Richard Cornford]

Re: altering text with javascript

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=blue]
> Jim Ley wrote:[color=green]
>> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:[/color][/color]
<snip>[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> It's a bogus header, that achieves nothing -
>>> Do you have *any* strong proof for that bold statement?[/color]
>>
>> Proof of what, that's bogus, [...][/color]
>
> Yes, strong proof of that, exactly. That would include a
> long list of positive UA tests, but then I don't expect you
> to ever provide it.[/color]

You have got your logic the wrong way around here. Evan an infinite list
of browsers that pay no heed to the bogus META element, or any
corresponding HTTP header, could not _prove_ that the header was bogus.
However, just one example of a browser that did take some significant
action in the presence of the META element (or HTTP header) that it
would not take in the absence of the same, would logically falsify the
assertion that the META/header is bogus. But realistically, the onus is
on you to find that one example. Otherwise the fact that nobody else has
ever cited such a browser (and in a community with quite a curiosity
about the diversity of web browsers) supports the theory that no such
browser exists.

<snip>[color=blue]
> 2. That this feature does not have a benefit remains to be
> proven. Since you state that it does not have one, you
> are the one to prove it. If you cannot prove it or you
> are not willing to do so, your statement remains false,
> and: By repeating false statements (over and over again)
> they do not become more true. [psf 4.18] Period.[/color]

It is not possible to prove anything logically. But any non-metaphysical
theory can be demonstrated to be false (disproved) if it is false. You
are the one asserting that the theory is false so the onus is on your to
present the evidence that disproves it.

Richard.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: altering text with javascript

Jim Ley wrote:
[color=blue]
> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:[color=green]
>> You are hedging. There is no official consensus among the WG and so the
>> last edition of the HTML 4.01 Specification is the only valid reference
>> on this topic.[/color]
>
> No, that's the point of an issue against a specification - the
> specification isn't clear, or is dubious in its nature etc. hence the
> issue - The element is suspect until the issue is resolved. (like a
> law that is being reviewed by a constitutional court, the law is
> suspect)[/color]

That still does not invalidate the Specification.
It makes it to be questioned, that's all. And that is good so.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Yes, strong proof of that, exactly. That would include a long list of
>>positive UA tests, but then I don't expect you to ever provide it.[/color]
>
> Lots of UA tests wouldn't prove it, there'd always be another UA, so
> that proof method wouldn't be acceptable to me.[/color]

So you agree that there is no method to provide a strong proof
that your bold statement is true and thus it must be false. Fine.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Yep, such as javascript being the default script language for
>>> intrinsic events.[/color]
>>
>>No, that depends on the UA.[/color]
>
> No it does not![/color]

It depends on the UA, since it depends on the script engine used by (and
available for) this app. If you would understand a first thing about what
is a user agent, you would not be stamping your foot.
[color=blue]
> Or prove it...[/color]

Use

<script type="text/vbscript" language="VBScr ipt">
Dim x
</script>

prior to an intrinsic event handler attribute value in IE, and
you have the proof. Even if that would not work as expected,
it would be pretty clear that it depends on the interpreting
software what the default scripting language is.
[color=blue]
> (please don't actually bother...)[/color]

You are the one to still bother about proving your statements,
not me.


PointedEars
--
C1999: Too much bloat: Shoot programmer

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: altering text with javascript

Richard Cornford wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=green]
>> 2. That this feature does not have a benefit remains to be
>> proven. Since you state that it does not have one, you
>> are the one to prove it. If you cannot prove it or you
>> are not willing to do so, your statement remains false,
>> and: By repeating false statements (over and over again)
>> they do not become more true. [psf 4.18] Period.[/color]
>
> It is not possible to prove anything logically.[/color]

This is utter nonsense or as you would call it, "Bullshit!"
[color=blue]
> But any non-metaphysical theory can be demonstrated to be false
> (disproved) if it is false. You are the one asserting that the
> theory is false so the onus is on your to present the evidence
> that disproves it.[/color]

I have not stated it is "bogus", Jim has. However, I have the
Recommendation of a supposed-to-be competent HTML WG that resulted in a
public Specification and no convincing proof that makes me to disbelieve
it/them: My UAs, i.e. the UAs I have tested with, are not necessarily the
most standards compliant ones, even if they call themselves standards
compliant or work in a Standards Compliance Mode.


EOD

PointedEars
--
Life's a complicated gig, so give that ol' Dark Night of the Soul a hug, and
howl the eternal YES!

[Richard Cornford]

Re: altering text with javascript

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=blue]
> Richard Cornford wrote:[/color]
<snip>[color=blue][color=green]
>> It is not possible to prove anything logically.[/color]
>
> This is utter nonsense or as you would call it, "Bullshit!"[/color]

I take it the study of epistemology has remained outside of your
experience to date.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> But any non-metaphysical theory can be demonstrated to be
>> false (disproved) if it is false. You are the one asserting
>> that the theory is false so the onus is on your to present
>> the evidence that disproves it.[/color]
>
> I have not stated it is "bogus", Jim has.[/color]
<snip>

Yes, that was Jim's assertion. Stronger wording I would have used, but
not a statement that can be dismissed for that reason.

Jim's assertion corresponds with all available empirical evidence, is
refutable (in that one example of a browser that cared about the META
element, or corresponding HTTP header, would disprove it (thus avoiding
it being categorised as metaphysical [1])), and is yet to be refuted.
And that (much as I expect you not to recognise it) is the criteria for
a scientific[2] 'truth'; a theory. It is not possible to know that such
a theory is true (it cannot be proved), but it is possible to know that
it is false (if it were), because it _is_ refutable.

You can assert that Jim's statement is false (and deduce that on any
irrational gourds you like) but _if_ Jim's statement is false you would
be in a position to disprove (refute, or falsify) it.

Richard.

[1] Being irrefutable (in a non-rhetorical sense) is the quality that
defines the metaphysical. It isn't a good quality for an assertion to
possess because it just means that nothing can be decided about it one
way or another, ever.

[2] On these criteria science progresses through the creation of new
theories that accurately describe the available evidence, and the
elimination of those (and existing theories) by their refutation
(falsification, or disproving). Thus the problem that it is impossible
to prove anything true is avoided because the totality of scientific
knowledge becomes more-true (less-false) over time through the
elimination of the false theories.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: altering text with javascript

Richard Cornford wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=green]
>> Richard Cornford wrote:[/color]
> <snip>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> It is not possible to prove anything logically.[/color]
>> This is utter nonsense or as you would call it, "Bullshit!"[/color]
>
> I take it the study of epistemology has remained outside of your
> experience to date.[/color]

I take it that you want to read
<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Logical_argumen t> pp.


PointedEars

[Richard Cornford]

Re: altering text with javascript

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=blue]
> Richard Cornford wrote:[color=green]
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Richard Cornford wrote:[/color]
>> <snip>[color=darkred]
>>>> It is not possible to prove anything logically.
>>> This is utter nonsense or as you would call it, "Bullshit!"[/color]
>>
>> I take it the study of epistemology has remained outside
>> of your experience to date.[/color]
>
> I take it that you want to read
> <http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Logical_argumen t> pp.[/color]

No, it is a less than authoritative article that skirts the issue.
Reading it contributed nothing.

Richard.

[Philo Hippo]

Re: altering text with javascript

> > Lots of UA tests wouldn't prove it, there'd always be another UA, so[color=blue][color=green]
> > that proof method wouldn't be acceptable to me.[/color]
>
> So you agree that there is no method to provide a strong proof
> that your bold statement is true and thus it must be false. Fine.[/color]

are you calling true what you cannot prove false???? People used to get
butned on the stakes thanks to people like that!!!

--

Hope that helps,

Phil

http://uk.geocities.com/philippeoget

philippeoget at yahoo dot com

Programming Excel: <a
href="http://uk.geocities.co m/philippeoget/xl/InternetLinkOrg aniser.zip"
target="_blank" >The Excel A2Z Project: </a>

http://uk.geocities.com/philippeoget/a2z/

"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <PointedEars@we b.de> wrote in message
news:2968402.aF Yi8d9yRX@Pointe dEars.de...[color=blue]
> Jim Ley wrote:
>[color=green]
> > [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> You are hedging. There is no official consensus among the WG and so[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> last edition of the HTML 4.01 Specification is the only valid reference
> >> on this topic.[/color]
> >
> > No, that's the point of an issue against a specification - the
> > specification isn't clear, or is dubious in its nature etc. hence the
> > issue - The element is suspect until the issue is resolved. (like a
> > law that is being reviewed by a constitutional court, the law is
> > suspect)[/color]
>
> That still does not invalidate the Specification.
> It makes it to be questioned, that's all. And that is good so.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Yes, strong proof of that, exactly. That would include a long list of
> >>positive UA tests, but then I don't expect you to ever provide it.[/color]
> >
> > Lots of UA tests wouldn't prove it, there'd always be another UA, so
> > that proof method wouldn't be acceptable to me.[/color]
>
> So you agree that there is no method to provide a strong proof
> that your bold statement is true and thus it must be false. Fine.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> Yep, such as javascript being the default script language for
> >>> intrinsic events.
> >>
> >>No, that depends on the UA.[/color]
> >
> > No it does not![/color]
>
> It depends on the UA, since it depends on the script engine used by (and
> available for) this app. If you would understand a first thing about what
> is a user agent, you would not be stamping your foot.
>[color=green]
> > Or prove it...[/color]
>
> Use
>
> <script type="text/vbscript" language="VBScr ipt">
> Dim x
> </script>
>
> prior to an intrinsic event handler attribute value in IE, and
> you have the proof. Even if that would not work as expected,
> it would be pretty clear that it depends on the interpreting
> software what the default scripting language is.
>[color=green]
> > (please don't actually bother...)[/color]
>
> You are the one to still bother about proving your statements,
> not me.
>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> C1999: Too much bloat: Shoot programmer[/color]