Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

[Prisoner at War]

Hi, All:

I have a JavaScript search engine that always causes MSIE 7 to do a
top-of-page security "warning" (that top-of-page-bar, and not an
"alert" [dialog box])...but other websites' JavaScripts do not trigger
that...what's going on? When I visit other JavaScript sites there's
no warning and the scripts work fine, but mine (it's still under
construction, offline) occasions that warning and I have to manually
allow MSIE to run JavaScript every new session of MSIE....

Also (nothing to do with JavaScript, but I might as well ask, in case
it helps any), I have an animated .jpg that refuses to load in MSIE 7
though Opera 9 and Firefox 2 display that perfectly.


TIA!!

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

Prisoner at War wrote:

I have a JavaScript search engine that always causes MSIE 7 to do a
top-of-page security "warning" (that top-of-page-bar, and not an
"alert" [dialog box])...but other websites' JavaScripts do not trigger
that...what's going on? When I visit other JavaScript sites there's
no warning and the scripts work fine, but mine (it's still under
construction, offline) occasions that warning and I have to manually
allow MSIE to run JavaScript every new session of MSIE....

The "JavaScript " search engine (MSIE 7, like all MSHTML-based UAs, provides
JScript instead) uses an ActiveX/COM object that is deemed insecure by MSIE
7. The other sites that you have checked either do not or they are defined
to be in another Security Zone where less restrictions apply.

This is no guessing game at all. Post some code or the URL of your search
engine.

http://jibbering.com/faq/

Also (nothing to do with JavaScript, but I might as well ask, in case
it helps any), I have an animated .jpg that refuses to load in MSIE 7
though Opera 9 and Firefox 2 display that perfectly.

There are no "animated .jpg", unless the resource name suffix is not
indicative of the file format in your case (bad idea with MSIE). JPEG is
not an image format that allows animation (short of progressive rendering),
you have to use GIF89a or MNG for that (alas, the latter only with limited
support).


PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashP ronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M SIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M ac') != -1
) // Plone, register_functi on.js:16

[Prisoner at War]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

On Apr 11, 5:08 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:

>
>
The "JavaScript " search engine (MSIE 7, like all MSHTML-based UAs, provides
JScript instead) uses an ActiveX/COM object that is deemed insecure by MSIE
7.  The other sites that you have checked either do not or they are defined
to be in another Security Zone where less restrictions apply.

Well, there's a cookie involved...but that's never been an issue
before! 'Matter of fact, until I manually turned it off, I was
getting cookies automatically, while getting that warning from MSIE.

This is no guessing game at all.  Post some code or the URL of your search
engine.

It's the script over at <http://javascriptkit.com/script/script2/jse/
index.shtml>... I've only modified it very slightly and don't think
it's anything I've done...it's rather too long to just post, even if
only just over fifty lines or so....

http://jibbering.com/faq/

Thanks for the ref...though I didn't notice anything specifically
relating to MSIE weirdness....

There are no "animated .jpg", unless the resource name suffix is not
indicative of the file format in your case (bad idea with MSIE).

Sorry, what do you mean "bad idea with MSIE"?? And how could the file
extension given by the OS itself be misleading??

 JPEG is
not an image format that allows animation (short of progressive rendering),
you have to use GIF89a or MNG for that (alas, the latter only with limited
support).

But WinXP says "JPEG" for sure!

?!?!

PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashP ronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M SIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M ac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_functi on.js:16

[Prisoner at War]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness


Just for the record...my second problem's now solved!

Turns out that MSIE 7 won't load animation that's been saved as a .jpg
file, but it will load it when that animation is properly labeled
the .gif that it is!!

?!?!

Opera 9 and Firefox 2 had no problems....




On Apr 11, 4:37 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_.. .@yahoo.comwrot e:

>
<SNIP>
>
Also (nothing to do with JavaScript, but I might as well ask, in case
it helps any), I have an animated .jpg that refuses to load in MSIE 7
though Opera 9 and Firefox 2 display that perfectly.
>
TIA!!

[Evertjan.]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

Prisoner at War wrote on 12 apr 2008 in comp.lang.javas cript:

Just for the record...my second problem's now solved!
>
Turns out that MSIE 7 won't load animation that's been saved as a .jpg
file, but it will load it when that animation is properly labeled
the .gif that it is!!

[Please do not toppost on usenet]

Could be weird, but it is not a javascript issue.

But thank you for pointing this out to me. ;-)

>
?!?!
>
Opera 9 and Firefox 2 had no problems....

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

Prisoner at War wrote:

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:

>The "JavaScript " search engine (MSIE 7, like all MSHTML-based UAs, provides
>JScript instead) uses an ActiveX/COM object that is deemed insecure by MSIE
>7. The other sites that you have checked either do not or they are defined
>to be in another Security Zone where less restrictions apply.

>
Well, there's a cookie involved...but that's never been an issue
before! 'Matter of fact, until I manually turned it off, I was
getting cookies automatically, while getting that warning from MSIE.

Pardon? I have written "ActiveX/COM object", _not_ "cookie", because the
former is the most common cause for such a warning message. However, the
code you are using does not use ActiveX/COM, so you should state what the
message actually says.

>http://jibbering.com/faq/

>
Thanks for the ref...though I didn't notice anything specifically
relating to MSIE weirdness....

It was the purpose of this reference that you get yourself informed about
proper behavior in Usenet in general, and comp.lang.javas cript in
particular. Especially

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html

as referred to there.

>There are no "animated .jpg", unless the resource name suffix is not
>indicative of the file format in your case (bad idea with MSIE).

>
Sorry, what do you mean "bad idea with MSIE"?? And how could the file
extension given by the OS itself be misleading??

Well, you have found that out for yourself in the meantime.

> JPEG is
>not an image format that allows animation (short of progressive rendering),
>you have to use GIF89a or MNG for that (alas, the latter only with limited
>support).

>
But WinXP says "JPEG" for sure!

Windows Explorer does not use MIME-magic, it relies solely on the filename
suffix. And so does Internet Explorer.


PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

[Prisoner at War]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

On Apr 12, 5:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:

>
>
Pardon? I have written "ActiveX/COM object", _not_ "cookie", because the
former is the most common cause for such a warning message. However, the
code you are using does not use ActiveX/COM, so you should state what the
message actually says.

It's that "to help protect your security, Internet Explorer has
restricted this webpage from running scripts or ActiveX controls that
could access your computer..." warning along the top of the screen,
just underneath the MSIE tabs. Once I click on it and choose "Allow
Blocked Content" everything works fine.

But, like I'd said, I was getting cookies automatically from all
websites before without that warning! But opening my webpage (which
is offline; I'm still working on it) with the search engine occasions
that warning for some strange reason -- and now, even stranger, the
simple image swap below also gets that warning!!

<img src="something. jpg" id="test" name="test"
onMouseOver="th is.src='nothing .jpg;"
onMouseOut="thi s.src='somethin g.jpg';" />

It was the purpose of this reference that you get yourself informed about
proper behavior in Usenet in general, and comp.lang.javas cript in
particular. Especially
>

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html

>
as referred to there.

Ah, okay, thanks...though , you know, I don't like it that even usenet
posting has "scripting rules!" 9_9

Well, you have found that out for yourself in the meantime.

So strange!! What's the point of a file extension, then, if it can be
renamed whatever...well , it still behaves as it should, whatever its
name!

Windows Explorer does not use MIME-magic, it relies solely on the filename
suffix. And so does Internet Explorer.

Okay, thanks again! This is what I hate about computers...the
stupidest things have to be so precise, but then other things can be
just whatever! =\

PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

[Prisoner at War]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

On Apr 12, 2:54 am, "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivo. ..@interxnl.net wrote:

>
>
[Please do not toppost on usenet]

What -- even of myself?!?! ;-)

Seriously...wha t's with the top-posting issue?? How come no one tells
bloggers to not top-post? (Yes I know usenet isn't a blog -- or,
rather, it's a gigantic public blog -- but I really don't understand
the logic of this top-posting no-no.)

Could be weird, but it is not a javascript issue.

And thank Goodness for that! Enough JavaScript issues as it is
-- ! ;-)

But thank you for pointing this out to me. ;-)

Glad you found it of interest! This stuff is very strange...it's like
trying to talk to President Bush...the damned thing just does what it
wants to do! Why "return false" in one case and "return true" in
another?? Strange stuff here and there....

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

Prisoner at War wrote:

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:

>Pardon? I have written "ActiveX/COM object", _not_ "cookie", because the
>former is the most common cause for such a warning message. However, the
>code you are using does not use ActiveX/COM, so you should state what the
>message actually says.

>
It's that "to help protect your security, Internet Explorer has
restricted this webpage from running scripts or ActiveX controls that
could access your computer..." warning along the top of the screen,
just underneath the MSIE tabs. Once I click on it and choose "Allow
Blocked Content" everything works fine.
>
But, like I'd said, I was getting cookies automatically from all
websites before without that warning! But opening my webpage (which
is offline; I'm still working on it) with the search engine occasions
that warning for some strange reason -- and now, even stranger, the
simple image swap below also gets that warning!!
>
<img src="something. jpg" id="test" name="test"
onMouseOver="th is.src='nothing .jpg;"
onMouseOut="thi s.src='somethin g.jpg';" />

(Confirmed for hoverMe accessed via `file:' URI. OMG.)

Internet Explorer 7 imposes several security restrictions on code loaded
from `file:' URIs. I presume this is to protect users from malware that
would not be able to get access to the OS if the OS was properly designed in
the first place.

You should test your "offline" Web sites on a local Web server so that you
can access them with `http:' URIs as you did after they went "online".
Apache is stable, does not eat much memory, is easy to install, open source,
free software, and it is for free:

http://httpd.apache.org/

>Well, you have found that out for yourself in the meantime.

>
So strange!! What's the point of a file extension, then, if it can be
renamed whatever...well , it still behaves as it should, whatever its
name!

See <http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Filename_extens ionfor details.
Especially the "Historical limitations" section should prove to be enlightening.

>Windows Explorer does not use MIME-magic, it relies solely on the filename
>suffix. And so does Internet Explorer.

>
Okay, thanks again! This is what I hate about computers...the
stupidest things have to be so precise, but then other things can be
just whatever! =\

That only depends on who writes the OS and the UI, and finally the Web user
agent. For example, GNU/Linux applications show that filename extensions do
not need to matter; Firefox shows that resource names do not need to matter,
even on Windows.


HTH

PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8 300dec7@news.de mon.co.uk>

[Prisoner at War]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

On Apr 12, 6:10 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:

>
>
(Confirmed for hoverMe accessed via `file:' URI. OMG.)

?

Internet Explorer 7 imposes several security restrictions on code loaded
from `file:' URIs. I presume this is to protect users from malware that
would not be able to get access to the OS if the OS was properly designed in
the first place.

LOL

You should test your "offline" Web sites on a local Web server so that you
can access them with `http:' URIs as you did after they went "online".
Apache is stable, does not eat much memory, is easy to install, open source,
free software, and it is for free:
>
http://httpd.apache.org/

Thanks for the ref, but you see how I'm struggling with simple
JavaScript basics here, too! =(

See <http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Filename_extens ionfor details.
Especially the "Historical limitations" section should prove to be enlightening.

Wow, thanks...this was really amusing: "[the] use of spaces often led
to confusion with novice DOS users, who thought of the "." as part of
the file's identifier, rather than merely a convention for separating
the two components of that identifier"...r eminds me of the joke about
customers calling tech support about the "'any' key"....

<SNIP>

[Prisoner at War]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

On Apr 17, 4:35 am, Jorge <jo...@jorgecha morro.comwrote:

<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/f...ns/2004-March/
040735.html>
>
Besides, most email clients invite you to top-post by default.
>
--Jorge.

Just seems natural, doesn't it? I mean, you presume someone is
following the conversation, so no need to open up with a re-hash of
the previous week's episode, so to speak! And for those who are just
tuning in...there's always the Collectors' Edition DVD! ;-)

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

Jorge wrote:

<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/f...ns/2004-March/
040735.html>

Why do you believe this is persuasive? McManis offers no substantial
arguments to support his position; neither is he any sort of authority
on the subject.

Besides, most email clients invite you to top-post by default.

Usenet is not email.

The default behavior of poorly-written software does not constitute a
persuasive argument.

That's zero for two. Care to try again?

--
Michael Wojcik

[Kevin Scholl]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

On Apr 18, 10:18 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_.. .@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Honestly, I think this whole business is nothing more than the ol'
toilet paper debate -- over or under. And you know what: it really
doesn't harm anyone either way. Is the cup half full or half empty?
However you characterize it, you can still drink that water, etc.

That may be in and of itself true. However, if bottom posting is the
clearly-defined preference of THIS group and as you say "doesn't harm
anyone", then why not exercise some common courtesy and adhere to that
methodology?

[Joost Diepenmaat]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_wa r@yahoo.comwrit es:

Honestly, I think this whole business is nothing more than the ol'
toilet paper non-debate -- over or under. 'Cause you know what: it
really doesn't harm anyone either way. Is the cup half full or half
empty? However you characterize it, you can still drink that water,
etc.

It isn't. It really *is* harder to parse a top-posted reply, because it
makes the context harder to find. Top-posting because you don't know any
better is excusable. Top-posting because you don't care about context
just makes you look lazy and uninterested in actually participating in a
civilized discussion; in other words, it's rude.

--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/

[Gregor Kofler]

Re: Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

Prisoner at War meinte:

Honestly, I think this whole business is nothing more than the ol'
toilet paper non-debate -- over or under. 'Cause you know what: it
really doesn't harm anyone either way.

It does. Anyway, if you want people to help you with your problem, you
should follow their suggestions and advices, do them the asked favour.

The way you act, won't help you with your problem, and make you look
like a moron. But you probably don't care about that either.

Gregor





--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum