FF !window.status

[Frances]

Firefox is not respecting window.status, examples in this pg

http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~jgwang/jsform02.htm

are ignored by Firefox.. why is this.. is there a solution.. thank you..

Frances

[Randy Webb]

Re: FF !window.status

Frances said the following on 2/19/2006 3:58 PM:[color=blue]
> Firefox is not respecting window.status,[/color]

Actually, it does. It prevents people from changing the status bar and
letting the status bar be used by the UA for what it was intended -
status of the page.

[color=blue]
> examples in this pg
> http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~jgwang/jsform02.htm
> are ignored by Firefox..[/color]

As it should be.
[color=blue]
> why is this..[/color]

See above.
[color=blue]
> is there a solution..[/color]

Yes. Instead of attempting to hijack my status bar, put a div on the
page for extra information, or the title attribute, or.....
[color=blue]
> thank you..[/color]

And thank you for leaving my status bar alone.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: FF !window.status

Frances wrote:
[color=blue]
> Firefox is not respecting window.status,[/color]

Yes, it is.
[color=blue]
> [...] why is this..[/color]

There is a preference checkbox that can be unchecked (and is probably
unchecked by default) to prevent client-side scripts from changing the
status bar text. This preference is also available for Mozilla Suite
and a number of other user agents. It is because the status bar usually
displays far more useful information compared to what script kiddies
(the irresponsible and largely incompetent type of script programmers)
want it to display.
[color=blue]
> is there a solution..[/color]

Enable the preference.

This is not about /your/ Firefox? Tough luck.


PointedEars

[Frances]

Re: FF !window.status

Randy Webb wrote:[color=blue]
> Frances said the following on 2/19/2006 3:58 PM:
>[color=green]
>> Firefox is not respecting window.status,[/color]
>
>
> Actually, it does. It prevents people from changing the status bar and
> letting the status bar be used by the UA for what it was intended -
> status of the page.
>
>[color=green]
>> examples in this pg
>> http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~jgwang/jsform02.htm
>> are ignored by Firefox..[/color]
>
>
> As it should be.
>[color=green]
>> why is this..[/color]
>
>
> See above.
>[color=green]
>> is there a solution..[/color]
>
>
> Yes. Instead of attempting to hijack my status bar, put a div on the
> page for extra information, or the title attribute, or.....
>[color=green]
>> thank you..[/color]
>
>
> And thank you for leaving my status bar alone.
>[/color]

I think it's kind of stupid to have a window on which it always "DONE"
at the bottom w/o being able to change it.. but oh well... thank you for
yr response..

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: FF !window.status

Frances wrote:
[color=blue]
> Randy Webb wrote:[color=green]
>> Frances said the following on 2/19/2006 3:58 PM:[color=darkred]
>>> Firefox is not respecting window.status,[/color]
>> Actually, it does. It prevents people from changing the status bar and
>> letting the status bar be used by the UA for what it was intended -
>> status of the page.
>> [...][/color]
>
> I think it's kind of stupid to have a window on which it always "DONE"
> at the bottom w/o being able to change it.. [...][/color]

You did not understand. The status bar is to display status information
about the window (and the document it shows). For example, if I would move
the mouse pointer over a visible hyperlink, it would display the URI of the
linked resource, and if I clicked the hyperlink, it would display the load
status of the target document (before it is showing it). The status bar
does not necessarily display "DONE" all the time, provided that there is
even a status bar. In fact, if there is a status bar, "DONE" is what it
rather displays least of the time. Observe yourselves more closely when
web-browsing and you will probably see this to be true.

There are undoubtedly reasonable approaches to modify the status bar text
but the other approaches have been used much more on the Web by the people
I described in my other posting, with rather disturbing effects to
usability. Hence the existence of the preference (in Firefox
1.5.0.1/Linux: Edit, Preferences, Content, [x] Enable JavaScript, Advanced,
Allow scripts to: [x] Change status bar text), and the fact that it is
probably unchecked by default.


PointedEars

[David Dorward]

Re: FF !window.status

Frances wrote:[color=blue]
> Randy Webb wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> And thank you for leaving my status bar alone.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I think it's kind of stupid to have a window on which it always "DONE"
> at the bottom w/o being able to change it[/color]

It isn't. I point at a link, it shows me where that link goes.



--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[caston]

Re: FF !window.status

BTW: IE7 is doing the same.

[Randy Webb]

Re: FF !window.status

caston said the following on 2/20/2006 5:37 AM:[color=blue]
> BTW: IE7 is doing the same.[/color]

"doing the same" as what?

Please quote what you are replying to.

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.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Frances]

Re: FF !window.status

caston wrote:[color=blue]
> BTW: IE7 is doing the same.
>[/color]

oh man.. that's just grand!....;)

(btw, is it true IE7 will not work in Win 2000?)

[Randy Webb]

Re: FF !window.status

Frances said the following on 2/20/2006 12:34 PM:[color=blue]
> caston wrote:[color=green]
>> BTW: IE7 is doing the same.
>>[/color]
>
> oh man.. that's just grand!....;)
>
> (btw, is it true IE7 will not work in Win 2000?)
>[/color]

Yes, it is true according to MS but what MS says is like the wind in a
windstorm. It's apt to change at any minute.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: FF !window.status

JRS: In article <jZOdnWC62r6fQG Xe4p2dnA@comcas t.com>, dated Sun, 19 Feb
2006 16:03:32 remote, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Randy Webb
<HikksNotAtHome @aol.com> posted :[color=blue]
>Frances said the following on 2/19/2006 3:58 PM:[color=green]
>> Firefox is not respecting window.status,[/color]
>
>Actually, it does. It prevents people from changing the status bar and
>letting the status bar be used by the UA for what it was intended -
>status of the page.[/color]


That's a Lahnish attitude.

There are two sorts of status; that provided by the system and that
provided by the programmer. Since that provided by the system can be
useful, it should not be overwritten gratuitously; but, if the
programmer considers other material more important, then that should be
shown instead.

I find it particularly appropriate to indicate progress of a long
calculation :-
for ( Y=y1 ; Y<=y2 ; Y++ ) { if (!(Y%100)) window.status = Y

The traditional "Done" is overwritten; but, after the calculation,
hovering over a link still gives the usual status line, at least in this
system.

--
© 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.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: FF !window.status

Frances wrote:
[color=blue]
> (btw, is it true IE7 will not work in Win 2000?)[/color]

STFW. From
<URL:http://www.microsoft.c om/windows/ie/ie7/ie7betaredirect .mspx>
it looks as if that will be so:

| Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview will only run on Windows® XP Service
| Pack 2 (SP2) systems, but will ultimately be available for Windows Vista,
| Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, and Windows Server 2003.

Not a surprise to me, though.


PointedEars

[Gérard Talbot]

Re: FF !window.status

Randy Webb wrote :[color=blue]
> Frances said the following on 2/19/2006 3:58 PM:[color=green]
>> Firefox is not respecting window.status,[/color]
>
> Actually, it does. It prevents people from changing the status bar and
> letting the status bar be used by the UA for what it was intended -
> status of the page.
>[/color]

Internet Explorer 7 beta 2 also prevents web authors from editing the
status line.

Tools/Internet Options.../Security tab/Internet/Custom
Level.../Scripting section/Allow status bar updates via script/Disable
radio button is checked by default.

[color=blue]
> And thank you for leaving my status bar alone.[/color]

I think all major and minor browsers give absolute veto power to users
now on this editing of the status bar message.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Randy Webb]

Re: FF !window.status

Dr John Stockton said the following on 2/20/2006 10:39 AM:[color=blue]
> JRS: In article <jZOdnWC62r6fQG Xe4p2dnA@comcas t.com>, dated Sun, 19 Feb
> 2006 16:03:32 remote, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript, Randy Webb
> <HikksNotAtHome @aol.com> posted :[color=green]
>> Frances said the following on 2/19/2006 3:58 PM:[color=darkred]
>>> Firefox is not respecting window.status,[/color]
>> Actually, it does. It prevents people from changing the status bar and
>> letting the status bar be used by the UA for what it was intended -
>> status of the page.[/color]
>
>
> That's a Lahnish attitude.[/color]

Given the choice between having a "Lahnish attitude" (which I don't) and
an arrogantly British attitude (which you do), I will choose mine.
[color=blue]
> There are two sorts of status; that provided by the system and that
> provided by the programmer.[/color]

Well Duh! And the status bar of the browser is *not* for the status
provided by the programmer.
[color=blue]
> Since that provided by the system can be useful, it should not
> be overwritten gratuitously;[/color]

Not, it should not be overwritten at all. And that is precisely why you
see more and more browsers not allowing it.
[color=blue]
> but, if the programmer considers other material more important,
> then that should be shown instead.[/color]

That is the typical "I, the programmer, know more about what the user
wants than the user" and that abuse is precisely why most modern
browsers do not allow scripting of the status bar.
[color=blue]
>
> I find it particularly appropriate to indicate progress of a long
> calculation :-
> for ( Y=y1 ; Y<=y2 ; Y++ ) { if (!(Y%100)) window.status = Y[/color]

Then you need to rethink your approach as most people (that excludes
you) will never see that message. You will see it because you are using
an outdated browser and outdated thinking.
[color=blue]
> The traditional "Done" is overwritten; but, after the calculation,
> hovering over a link still gives the usual status line, at least in this
> system.[/color]

And considering that your system, and obviously your thinking with
regards to the status bar is ancient, it doesn't mean a whole lot.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: FF !window.status

Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue]
> [...] Randy Webb [...] posted :[color=green]
>> Frances said the following on 2/19/2006 3:58 PM:[color=darkred]
>>> Firefox is not respecting window.status,[/color]
>> Actually, it does. It prevents people from changing the status bar and
>> letting the status bar be used by the UA for what it was intended -
>> status of the page.[/color]
>
> That's a Lahnish attitude.[/color]

"Never be afraid to cultivate your concept of the enemy.", yes? You would
never admit that a view was indeed a reasonable one if I was among those
who held it, would you?

JFYI: Again you missed the context of the request completely, or, what is
more probable, you ignored it deliberately.


PointedEars