Advance Date +15 Days

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: Hiding script with HTML comments

Michael Winter <m.winter@bluey onder.co.invali d> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Script 'hiding' has been around for so long that many don't know why it
> began in the first place, or that it stopped being necessary years ago.[/color]

Does this truly go for all modern browsers, including PDA-based
browsers? I believe we had a situation where some PDA browser
actually crashed on <script> tags, although that wouldn't have been
fixed by script hiding.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Michael Winter]

Re: Hiding script with HTML comments

On 20/06/2005 19:16, Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
[color=blue]
> Michael Winter <m.winter@bluey onder.co.invali d> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Script 'hiding' [...] stopped being necessary years ago.[/color]
>
> Does this truly go for all modern browsers, including PDA-based
> browsers?[/color]

There's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't, but I didn't really mean
to say 'all'. No-one could make that claim.

All a user agent needs to do once it reads a SCRIPT opening tag is
ignore everything until it encounters </ (though </script is probably
safer). Even something that's strapped for resources should have no
problem doing this as it needs to for SGML comments.

The SCRIPT (and STYLE) elements were defined in 1996. If a user agent
written after HTML 3.2 doesn't understand them, then it's broken. But,
as I said elsewhere, if you have a genuine concern, then a better
solution would be to move the script to an external file. Non-trivial
scripts should be separated, anyway.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: Advance Date +15 Days

JRS: In article <d968u7$nup$05$ 1@news.t-online.com>, dated Mon, 20 Jun
2005 13:24:49, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Daniel Kirsch
<Iwillnotread_d aniel@gmx.de> posted :[color=blue]
>Robert@BeatToB eat.com wrote:[color=green]
>> I need this script to advance the document.write by 15 days,[/color]
>
>Maybe the following script might be of use for you:
>
>var fst = "+15d";
>var dte = new Date();
>var plusMinus = fst.match(/[+-]\d+[smhdy]/gi);
>if (plusMinus) {
> var vorz, shrt, val;
> var multiplier = {"S":1,"M":60," H":3600,"d":864 00};
> for (var i=0; i<plusMinus.len gth; i++) {
> vorz = plusMinus[i].charAt(0) == "+" ? 1 : -1;
> shrt = plusMinus[i].charAt(plusMin us[i].length-1);
> val = vorz*Number(plu sMinus[i].substring(1,pl usMinus[i].length-1));
> if (shrt == "m")
> dte.setMonth(dt e.getMonth() + val);
> else if (shrt.toLowerCa se() == "y")
> dte.setFullYear (dte.getFullYea r() + val);
> else if (multiplier[shrt])
> dte.setTime(dte .getTime() + (val*multiplier[shrt]*1000));
> }
>}
>alert(dte);[/color]



Not good.

If new Date('2005/10/21'); is used, then, since there are 31 days in
October, the answer should be November 5th. However, if executed in the
EU or in much of North America, the result will be in November 4th.

Did you not see that I warned the OP "Ignore any response containing
864e5 or its equivalent;"?

See below.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.c om/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang. javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[Richard Cornford]

Re: Hiding script with HTML comments

T. Postel wrote:[color=blue]
> Michael Winter wrote:
>[color=green]
>>The original point of 'hiding' was to make sure that an
>>old browser (that is, old at the end of the last century)
>>wouldn't show the contents of a SCRIPT element. All user
>>agents now in use understand what a SCRIPT element is,
>>whether they are capable of executing them or not, so
>>this is entirely unnecessary. The fact that it persists
>>in modern markup shows just how clueless some people are.[/color]
>
> However, several search engines do pay attention to HTML
> comments and don't index keywords found inside them.[/color]

Not indexing the contents of comments in HTML seems like a perfectly
reasonable thing for a search engine to do. They are unlikely to contain
anything of relevance to someone doing any sort of search.
[color=blue]
> Much modern usage of comment tags around <script> and
> <style> code is to prevent search engines from displaying
> pages which may contain keywords in the code.[/color]

Is this true? Strictly speaking what appear to be HTML comments within
SCRIPT and STYLE elements are not comments at all because the contents
of those elements are CDATA so the HTML comment-like delimiters are no
more than sequences of charters that resemble HTML comments. They only
get to be HTML comments when the parser has no understanding of SCRIPT
and STYLE elements.

Now SCRIPT and STYLE elements have been with us for some considerable
time, and browsers at least have understood how to handle them (either
using them or ignoring their contents) for almost as long.

So how does the writer of an HTML parser for a search engine come to be
unfamiliar with the nature of SCIPT and STYLE elements? And how does the
resulting search engine perform when it is diluting its usefulness
considering identifiers, script comments and CSS class names.

This sounds more like someone inventing a fairly tail to justify doing
something that they could not find any other reason for doing. An
nothing short of search engine documentation stating that they index
SCRIPT and STYLE element content will convince me otherwise.
[color=blue]
> Perhaps there is more than one clue?[/color]

Or a second type of clueless.

Richard.

[Daniel Kirsch]

Re: Advance Date +15 Days

Dr John Stockton wrote:[color=blue]
> Not good.
>
> If new Date('2005/10/21'); is used, then, since there are 31 days in
> October, the answer should be November 5th. However, if executed in the
> EU or in much of North America, the result will be in November 4th.
>
> Did you not see that I warned the OP "Ignore any response containing
> 864e5 or its equivalent;"?[/color]

Thanks. Added
if (shrt == "d")
dte.setDate(dte .getDate() + val);

Anything else "not good"?

Daniel

[David Håsäther]

Re: Hiding script with HTML comments

Michael Winter <m.winter@bluey onder.co.invali d> wrote:
[color=blue]
> All a user agent needs to do once it reads a SCRIPT opening tag is
> ignore everything until it encounters </[/color]

Pedantry: Actually, "</" followed by a name start character (a-zA-Z),
i.e. ETAGO delmiter-in-context, or NET ("/") if the start tag was NET-
enabling.

--
David Håsäther

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: Advance Date +15 Days

JRS: In article <d98md2$db3$02$ 1@news.t-online.com>, dated Tue, 21 Jun
2005 11:26:55, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Daniel Kirsch
<Iwillnotread_d aniel@gmx.de> posted :[color=blue]
>Dr John Stockton wrote:[color=green]
>> Not good.
>>
>> If new Date('2005/10/21'); is used, then, since there are 31 days in
>> October, the answer should be November 5th. However, if executed in the
>> EU or in much of North America, the result will be in November 4th.
>>
>> Did you not see that I warned the OP "Ignore any response containing
>> 864e5 or its equivalent;"?[/color]
>
>Thanks. Added
> if (shrt == "d")
> dte.setDate(dte .getDate() + val);
>
>Anything else "not good"?[/color]

Well, the RegExp test should perhaps be case-sensitive; and you need to
think about what +3H should do to Sun 2005/10/30 00:00:00. As you have
it, it gives 2 o'clock; but with setHours it would give 3 o'clock.

If the change cannot be done, the date should possibly be set to NaN.

vorz = plusMinus[i].charAt(0) == "+" ? 1 : -1;
or vorz = plusMinus[i].charAt(0) + "1" // ??

Actually, you don't need vorz; RegExp match with
X = fst.match(/([+-]\d+)([SMHdmy])/)
then +X[1] can be used as val and X[2] as the selector.

Note that a minute after 2005/10/30 01:59:30 it is actually 2005/10/30
01:00:30.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.c om/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang. javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[Daniel Kirsch]

Re: Advance Date +15 Days

Dr John Stockton wrote:[color=blue]
> Well, the RegExp test should perhaps be case-sensitive; and you need to
> think about what +3H should do to Sun 2005/10/30 00:00:00. As you have
> it, it gives 2 o'clock; but with setHours it would give 3 o'clock.[/color]

Of course. But that's pretty theoretical :-)
[color=blue]
> Actually, you don't need vorz; RegExp match with
> X = fst.match(/([+-]\d+)([SMHdmy])/)
> then +X[1] can be used as val and X[2] as the selector.[/color]

Thanks.

[color=blue]
> Note that a minute after 2005/10/30 01:59:30 it is actually 2005/10/30
> 01:00:30.[/color]

Works for me. It gives me "2:00:30".

Daniel

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: Advance Date +15 Days

JRS: In article <d9boc7$187$00$ 1@news.t-online.com>, dated Wed, 22 Jun
2005 15:19:02, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Daniel Kirsch
<Iwillnotread_d aniel@gmx.de> posted :[color=blue]
>Dr John Stockton wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Note that a minute after 2005/10/30 01:59:30 it is actually 2005/10/30
>> 01:00:30.[/color]
>
>Works for me. It gives me "2:00:30".[/color]

Yes; but you're presumably in Germany. Try it in German time, a clock
hour later.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[cwdjrxyz@yahoo.com]

Re: Hiding script with HTML comments

> Michael Winter <m.win...@bluey onder.co.invali d> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Script 'hiding' has been around for so long that many don't know why it[/color]
began in the first place, or that it stopped being necessary years ago.

I wonder if you can say the same about multi-line comment tags around
CDATA open and close tags placed in a script in a few years. In xhtml
you are required to surround the script with open and close CDATA tags
to avoid possible conflict with xml, if any is included in the xhtml
page. The problem is that most current browsers do not understand the
xml CDATA tags and completely kill the script, if you use them. The W3C
xhtml 1.0 and 1.1 validators will validate such a page perfectly, if it
has no errors. However if you leave the CDATA tags off, the validators
make a terrible fuss. However if you surround the CDATA open and close
tags with the multi-line javascript tags, everyone is happy. The page
works, and the validators and a proper xhtml delivery see right through
the javascripts to view the XML CDATA tags. I believe I first learned
about this at the Opera forum nearly 2 years ago from a member of the
Opera design team. Of course the easy way out is to use an external
javascript file, which avoids all of this fuss. However, many still
insist on including the script on the main page.

PS The Google beta groups site has been acting up at times for the last
day or two. It sometimes does not put the quoted message in the text
box, and you have to highlight and copy it to the response text box.
Until this problem resolves, some posts made from Google are going to
look strange. Major US ISPs including MSN and AOL have dropped Usenet
groups. I and many others are not interested in newsreaders just to
make a few posts in Usenet. Nearly everyone I know reads NGs online.
Most plans here allow unlimited, or very large, time on line, and many
even with dialup leave the computer on for many hours at a time.

[Michael Winter]

Re: Hiding script with HTML comments

On 23/06/2005 09:40, cwdjrxyz@yahoo. com wrote:

[snip]
[color=blue]
> The problem is that most current browsers do not understand the
> xml CDATA tags and completely kill the script, if you use them.[/color]

The rather blatantly obvious solution is to not serve XHTML(-like)
documents to user agents that don't explicitly state[1] they support it.

There is no benefit in serving XHTML as text/html, and XML tools can
transform their output to HTML so there is no excuse here, either.

[snip]

Mike


[1] IE says it supports anything in its request headers, so you have to
ignore things like that when negotiating XHTML.

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: Hiding script with HTML comments

JRS: In article <1119516020.855 751.61640@g47g2 000cwa.googlegr oups.com>,
dated Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:40:20, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript,
cwdjrxyz@yahoo. com <cwdjrxyz@yahoo .com> posted :[color=blue]
>
>PS The Google beta groups site has been acting up at times for the last
>day or two. It sometimes does not put the quoted message in the text
>box, and you have to highlight and copy it to the response text box.
>Until this problem resolves, some posts made from Google are going to
>look strange. Major US ISPs including MSN and AOL have dropped Usenet
>groups. I and many others are not interested in newsreaders just to
>make a few posts in Usenet. Nearly everyone I know reads NGs online.
>Most plans here allow unlimited, or very large, time on line, and many
>even with dialup leave the computer on for many hours at a time.[/color]

If providers in your country provide only shoddy services, it is you who
should suffer, not us; you merit no sympathy. Pay for a good service,
and demand it.


If you find that, when you start a News reply, Google does not provide
the previous article in quoted form, note what Keith Thompson wrote in
comp.lang.c, message ID <lnwtuhfy7d.fsf @nuthaus.mib.or g> :-
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show
options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at
the bottom of the article headers.

Since that is what the experts in this newsgroup prefer to read, it will
be to your advantage to comply.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demo n.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: Advance Date +15 Days

Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue]
> JRS: In article <d9boc7$187$00$ 1@news.t-online.com>, dated Wed, 22 Jun
> 2005 15:19:02, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Daniel Kirsch
> <Iwillnotread_d aniel@gmx.de> posted :[color=green]
>>Dr John Stockton wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Note that a minute after 2005/10/30 01:59:30 it is actually 2005/10/30
>>> 01:00:30.[/color]
>> Works for me. It gives me "2:00:30".[/color]
>
> Yes; but you're presumably in Germany. Try it in German time,
> a clock hour later.[/color]

I am in Germany where next change from Daylight Saving Time to
"normal" time is scheduled on Sunday, 2005-10-30, 03:00:00.000
local (DS)time, using the German time locale.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050610
Firefox/1.0.4 (Debian package 1.0.4-3) Mnenhy/0.7.2.0

shows for `new Date(2005, 9, 30, 1, 59)'
"Sun Oct 30 2005 01:59:00 GMT+0200 (CEST)"
which is correct;

for `new Date(2005, 9, 30, 2, 59)'
"Sun Oct 30 2005 02:59:00 GMT+0100 (CET)"
which is incorrect

and so for `new Date(new Date(2005, 9, 30, 2, 59).getTime() + 3600000)'
"Sun Oct 30 2005 03:59:00 GMT+0100 (CET)"
which is correct according to "common sense".

Apparently, the JavaScript 1.5 engine of my UA is not up to date or not
properly using the locale. The second expression should have given

"Sun Oct 30 2005 02:59:00 GMT+0200 (CEST)"

as change from local DST to local "normal" time is scheduled only a
minute later (ref. <http://zeitumstellung. de/>). Or am I missing
something?


PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: Hiding script with HTML comments

cwdjrxyz@yahoo. com wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Michael Winter <m.win...@bluey onder.co.invali d> wrote:
>> Script 'hiding' has been around for so long that many don't know why it[/color]
> began in the first place, or that it stopped being necessary years ago.[/color]
^^
This quote is borken, although Google Groups may error-correct that for
display. The technical flaws of Google Groups posts are many, especially
in the new version; please avoid using it, use a proper newsreader
application instead.
[color=blue]
> I wonder if you can say the same about multi-line comment tags around
> CDATA open and close tags placed in a script in a few years. In xhtml
> you are required to surround the script with open and close CDATA tags
> to avoid possible conflict with xml, if any is included in the xhtml
> page.[/color]

No, you are not. As it is but a PCDATA issue, you may instead escape markup
characters within the PCDATA content that script or style content is in
XHTML, e.g. `&lt;' for `<' (JS: less-than operator; CSS: child selector),
&gt; for `>' (JS: greater-than operator) and so on.

It is only that the UA(s) tested with or targeted, most notably Internet
Explorer, are not capable of processing XHTML and so do not support CDATA
_content declarations_ which is why commenting out those declarations is
necessary; not using the unsupported markup language in the first place
(but sticking to widely, if not always, supported HTML 4.01, Strict DTD
if possible) or including/linking to a script or style file would have
avoided the original problem.


PointedEars

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: Advance Date +15 Days

JRS: In article <4796935.ZtuNWH zeWK@PointedEar s.de>, dated Sun, 3 Jul
2005 19:40:18, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <PointedEars@we b.de> posted :[color=blue]
>Dr John Stockton wrote:[/color]
(about ten days ago)
[color=blue][color=green]
>> JRS: In article <d9boc7$187$00$ 1@news.t-online.com>, dated Wed, 22 Jun
>> 2005 15:19:02, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Daniel Kirsch
>> <Iwillnotread_d aniel@gmx.de> posted :[color=darkred]
>>>Dr John Stockton wrote:
>>>> Note that a minute after 2005/10/30 01:59:30 it is actually 2005/10/30
>>>> 01:00:30.
>>> Works for me. It gives me "2:00:30".[/color]
>>
>> Yes; but you're presumably in Germany. Try it in German time,
>> a clock hour later.[/color]
>
>I am in Germany[/color]

[color=blue]
>Apparently, the JavaScript 1.5 engine of my UA is not up to date or not
>properly using the locale. The second expression should have given
>
>"Sun Oct 30 2005 02:59:00 GMT+0200 (CEST)"
>
>as change from local DST to local "normal" time is scheduled only a
>minute later (ref. <http://zeitumstellung. de/>). Or am I missing
>something?[/color]

Probably.

Rather than looking at such as
new Date(2005, 9, 30, 1, 59)
it would be simpler to look at
new Date(2005, 9, 30, 1, 59).getTimezone Offset()
or
new Date("2005/10/30 00:59:00 GMT").getTimezo neOffset()

One can get javascript to determine when the clock change is thought to
occur : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-clndr.htm#Ctrls > shows it.

Unfortunately, operating systems are often written and configured in a
country which has a considerable reputation for ignorance both about
time and about the rest of the world; so your OS may have incorrect
data.


You wrote :
for `new Date(2005, 9, 30, 2, 59)'
"Sun Oct 30 2005 02:59:00 GMT+0100 (CET)"
which is incorrect
Is it? Local time 02:59 occurs twice, once at the end of Summer and
once at the start of Winter, and ISTM that you see the latter. After
the clock has been put back, it continues going forwards.

Indeed, AIUI, the first version of Windows 95 (cf. ibid. 13,14/19) sets
the clock back whenever it thinks that the clock has reached 2 a.m. on
the day in question, not just on the first occasion.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.