MM_ functions????

[Bill Parker]

Hi

Anyone got any pointers to a resource detailing the MM_ functions so many
pages use? A google search on say, MM_showHideLaye rs (waht that?) simply
returns huge numbers of pages that actually use this routine.

As ever, all help gratefully received.

Cheers

Bill

[Knud Gert Ellentoft]

Re: MM_ functions????

"Bill Parker" <bill@gites.org .uk> skrev :
[color=blue]
>Anyone got any pointers to a resource detailing the MM_ functions so many
>pages use? A google search on say, MM_showHideLaye rs (waht that?) simply
>returns huge numbers of pages that actually use this routine.[/color]

It's scripts made in Macromedia Dreamweaver.
--
Knud

[Knud Gert Ellentoft]

Re: MM_ functions????

"Bill Parker" <bill@gites.org .uk> skrev :
[color=blue]
>Anyone got any pointers to a resource detailing the MM_ functions so many
>pages use? A google search on say, MM_showHideLaye rs (waht that?) simply
>returns huge numbers of pages that actually use this routine.[/color]

It's scripts made in Macromedia Dreamweaver.
--
Knud

[David Dorward]

Re: MM_ functions????

Bill Parker wrote:
[color=blue]
> Anyone got any pointers to a resource detailing the MM_ functions so many
> pages use?[/color]

They are generated by Dreamweaver, but appear to be very low quality and
best avoided.

The open window function, for instance, is 100% redundant, it accepts three
parameters, and passes those three parameters to window.open without
modification. Its a waste of bandwidth and CPU time.

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

[David Dorward]

Re: MM_ functions????

Bill Parker wrote:
[color=blue]
> Anyone got any pointers to a resource detailing the MM_ functions so many
> pages use?[/color]

They are generated by Dreamweaver, but appear to be very low quality and
best avoided.

The open window function, for instance, is 100% redundant, it accepts three
parameters, and passes those three parameters to window.open without
modification. Its a waste of bandwidth and CPU time.

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

[DU]

Re: MM_ functions????

Bill Parker wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hi
>
> Anyone got any pointers to a resource detailing the MM_ functions so many
> pages use? A google search on say, MM_showHideLaye rs (waht that?) simply
> returns huge numbers of pages that actually use this routine.
>
> As ever, all help gratefully received.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>[/color]

Sir, I'm happy you posted your question. I definitively, resolutely and
absolutely recommend that you do not use any of the MM_ script functions
for hundreds of reasons:
- poor quality, outdated, unreliable
- does not work in recent browser versions, does not always work
cross-browser
- resort to document.write( ), innerHTML, setTimeout(exp, 10),
setInterval(exp ,10), eval() and many commands which are very demanding
for (hogging) RAM-cpu-resources of the users
- poor or incorrect browser detection (instead of detecting browser
support for properties and methods)
- does not call DOM 2 methods, even the ones which are known to be well
supported by recent browsers (MSIE 6, Mozilla 1+, Opera 6+).
- resort to general purpose commands instead of more efficient ones (DOM
methods)
- 90% of the time, these functions are not optimized, robust, efficient
- resort to "javascript :" pseudo-protocol in the href value
- create bugs

Overall, these script functions do or use the bad "things" that regulars
in this newsgroup (and in other web programming newsgroups) and
professional web developers condemn and denounce as bad code.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/

- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

[DU]

Re: MM_ functions????

Bill Parker wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hi
>
> Anyone got any pointers to a resource detailing the MM_ functions so many
> pages use? A google search on say, MM_showHideLaye rs (waht that?) simply
> returns huge numbers of pages that actually use this routine.
>
> As ever, all help gratefully received.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>[/color]

Sir, I'm happy you posted your question. I definitively, resolutely and
absolutely recommend that you do not use any of the MM_ script functions
for hundreds of reasons:
- poor quality, outdated, unreliable
- does not work in recent browser versions, does not always work
cross-browser
- resort to document.write( ), innerHTML, setTimeout(exp, 10),
setInterval(exp ,10), eval() and many commands which are very demanding
for (hogging) RAM-cpu-resources of the users
- poor or incorrect browser detection (instead of detecting browser
support for properties and methods)
- does not call DOM 2 methods, even the ones which are known to be well
supported by recent browsers (MSIE 6, Mozilla 1+, Opera 6+).
- resort to general purpose commands instead of more efficient ones (DOM
methods)
- 90% of the time, these functions are not optimized, robust, efficient
- resort to "javascript :" pseudo-protocol in the href value
- create bugs

Overall, these script functions do or use the bad "things" that regulars
in this newsgroup (and in other web programming newsgroups) and
professional web developers condemn and denounce as bad code.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/

- Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
- Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x

http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html

[Richard Cornford]

Re: MM_ functions????

"DU" <drunclear@hotR EMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:bh58vc$51g $1@news.eusc.in ter.net...
<snip>[color=blue][color=green]
>>Anyone got any pointers to a resource detailing the
>>MM_ functions so many pages use? ...[/color][/color]
<snip>
[color=blue]
>Sir, I'm happy you posted your question. I definitively,
>resolutely and absolutely recommend that you do not use
>any of the MM_ script functions for hundreds of reasons:
>- poor quality, outdated, unreliable
>- does not work in recent browser versions, does not
>always work cross-browser
>- resort to document.write( ), innerHTML, setTimeout(exp, 10),
>setInterval(ex p,10), eval() and many commands which are
>very demanding for (hogging) RAM-cpu-resources of the users
>- poor or incorrect browser detection (instead of detecting
> browser support for properties and methods)
>- does not call DOM 2 methods, even the ones which are known
>to be well supported by recent browsers (MSIE 6, Mozilla 1+,
>Opera 6+).
>- resort to general purpose commands instead of more
>efficient ones (DOM methods)
>- 90% of the time, these functions are not optimized, robust,
>efficient
>- resort to "javascript :" pseudo-protocol in the href value
>- create bugs
>
>Overall, these script functions do or use the bad "things"
>that regulars in this newsgroup (and in other web
>programming newsgroups) and professional web developers
>condemn and denounce as bad code.[/color]

I would like to 100% endorse every word of your post. The Macromedia
product generated JavaScript functions are so bad that it is hard to
find words to sufficiently express their shortcomings. The only sensible
application I can see for them is to illustrate how _not_ to do write
JavaScript, they have not other merits.

Richard.

[Richard Cornford]

Re: MM_ functions????

"DU" <drunclear@hotR EMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:bh58vc$51g $1@news.eusc.in ter.net...
<snip>[color=blue][color=green]
>>Anyone got any pointers to a resource detailing the
>>MM_ functions so many pages use? ...[/color][/color]
<snip>
[color=blue]
>Sir, I'm happy you posted your question. I definitively,
>resolutely and absolutely recommend that you do not use
>any of the MM_ script functions for hundreds of reasons:
>- poor quality, outdated, unreliable
>- does not work in recent browser versions, does not
>always work cross-browser
>- resort to document.write( ), innerHTML, setTimeout(exp, 10),
>setInterval(ex p,10), eval() and many commands which are
>very demanding for (hogging) RAM-cpu-resources of the users
>- poor or incorrect browser detection (instead of detecting
> browser support for properties and methods)
>- does not call DOM 2 methods, even the ones which are known
>to be well supported by recent browsers (MSIE 6, Mozilla 1+,
>Opera 6+).
>- resort to general purpose commands instead of more
>efficient ones (DOM methods)
>- 90% of the time, these functions are not optimized, robust,
>efficient
>- resort to "javascript :" pseudo-protocol in the href value
>- create bugs
>
>Overall, these script functions do or use the bad "things"
>that regulars in this newsgroup (and in other web
>programming newsgroups) and professional web developers
>condemn and denounce as bad code.[/color]

I would like to 100% endorse every word of your post. The Macromedia
product generated JavaScript functions are so bad that it is hard to
find words to sufficiently express their shortcomings. The only sensible
application I can see for them is to illustrate how _not_ to do write
JavaScript, they have not other merits.

Richard.