If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
"VanguardLH" wrote in message ... Mark Lloyd wrote: Emrys Davies wrote: Rendered page: https://imgur.com/a/HbOvNnD I opened this URL and it said: JavaScript is required to upload to imgur Upload? When you just wanted to look at it. There's no real need for a site to require Javascript for that. In Internet Explorer 11 with Javascript enabled, I see the pic at the imgur site (that I previously uploaded). With Javascript disabled, I only see a black placeholder where the pic should appear. Javascript is required to see the pic. However, I do NOT get a "Javascript is required ..." prompt. I don't get any prompt. I only see the black placeholder for the pic. This URL works now: https://imgur.com/a/HbOvNnD |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
Emrys Davies wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message news Emrys Davies wrote: Your Avast spam is back again! I had disabled it and now I found that it is back again. I went to its Menu again Settings un-ticked relevant box Clicked OK. We will see what happens now. When software is re-installed, or there is a major version update, the settings can be reset. It's not necessarily easy to see this, if the software is sneaky in any case. Paul Sometimes I use 'Restart' to make sure that a disable or enable is definitely effective. Could that cause a reset rather than reinforcing the desired action? I would think a new version of Avast installing itself, would do this. Paul |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
Mayayana wrote:
"VanguardLH" wrote | A troll that goes from free to paid? Not likely. Got any better | evidence? I'm not certain. I block 3 versions of Arlen. Recently I remember he started using a different name. And for a reason I don't recall I've recently blocked . So I thought that was probably Arlen. Then there's the fact that Frank knows of an Arlen alias with the same last name: Davies. I should keep a list of why I block people. Some I remember clearly. Some I don't. Since I don't see Emrys Davies posts I don't see all of this thread, but from what I can see it looks like he's leading people on a long wild goose chase. I started to get that feeling, too (a troll that hides being one and leads the respondents into wasting their time). However, a true troll wouldn't let active respondents off the hook by following any advice to reenable active scripting and the problem went away. Emrys posted to most subthreads to repeat his message that he got Javascript enabled. A true troll would keep feigning inability to follow instructions, ignore those that would solve the problem, pretend intense stupidity, or other ways of tagging along the respondents. If the solution becomes intensely obvious, the troll just leaves the thread. Noobs do that, too: they get a response that is a solution, fix their problem, and are not polite in returning to report on status and what worked. It can be difficult to discern between a true troll and a noob. It was a bit ridiculuous of Emrys to keep reposting the same URL he was given as though that would show others what he saw in his web browser. No one here has a crystal ball or telescope that can bend around the curvature of the planet, get past his window blinds, through his home's walls, and look over his shoulder to see at what he is pointing at. He needed to either describe in detail what he actually saw or take a screenshot and upload it to give a URL to the screenshot. That circuity was suspicious: get a URL of where to test and then give back the same URL as some proof of what he saw there in IE. After suggesting how to check active scripting was enabled in the Internet security zone, Emrys reported a day later of setting it to enabled (which presumes it was disabled). However, no mention at that time if that change fixed his problem. The next day Emrys says Javascript is working. Maybe it was the active scripting setting, possibly something else he did. A troll would probably keep us tagging alone rather than declare the problem fixed. A problem that I've found by giving multiple candidate solutions is that too often the OP focuses on just one of them. Trolls and noobs will focus on just one suggestion (which isn't a solution for them) or just ignore all of them and wander off on something else. Sometimes I prod them to try the other suggestions. If they refuse or simply ignore trying the other suggestions, I leave. I offered help. They won't try. Give up the handholding on a noob with no initiative or the troll leading you on. A good troll can behave just like a noob: exhibiting a very low level of expertise and inability to follow instructions or lack initiative to do any research. Sometimes you can't tell if you're getting suckered by a expert troll or having to handhold a noob. Everyone was a noob at one time on any topic and is still a noob on others. I can work on my own car and even know about its components and how they work inside but still don't have the expertise to actually disassemble and repair all that stuff. Knowing how a CVT works does not mean I can repair one, but not knowing how to repair one doesn't mean that I choose to remain ignorant of how it works and what to expect from one. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
Paul wrote:
Emrys Davies wrote: "Paul" wrote in message news Emrys Davies wrote: Your Avast spam is back again! I had disabled it and now I found that it is back again. I went to its Menu again Settings un-ticked relevant box Clicked OK. We will see what happens now. When software is re-installed, or there is a major version update, the settings can be reset. It's not necessarily easy to see this, if the software is sneaky in any case. Paul Sometimes I use 'Restart' to make sure that a disable or enable is definitely effective. Could that cause a reset rather than reinforcing the desired action? I would think a new version of Avast installing itself, would do this. I just uninstall (well, actually never install) the superfluous Mail module to eliminate any problems caused by it: inane spam signatures in e-mail or newsgroups, timeouts between client and server due to interrogation of e-mail and NNTP traffic, errors in the client when the transparent proxy for the AV becomes unresponsive (user see errors in the client but the problem is with the AV's proxy), etc. There is no additional malware detection coverage by the Mail module which uses the same engine as the on-demand (real-time) scanner. It's a means of an AV vendor to bloat the feature set of their product: look, we cover this infection vector, and that one, and this other one, and ... New installs of Avast do not forcibly alter the current configuration; however, you may need to perform a custom installation. Anyone clicking through the installer's screens as fast as they can without reading those screens gets whatever the software vendor wants that user to have, and that means a lot of bloatware and possibly a lot of bundleware or spamware, too. I've done signature updates. That's just a database update. I've done program updates. Those can affect the heuristics employed by the AV to detect behaviors of events on the computer and add/delete/modify the feature set. I've not had program updates alter which modules were selected during the initial installation. The program updates have also not affected my settings within each module; however, a module that gets removed or replaced with something "better" means losing the old module and its settings and having to configure its replacement. Only if I run the full installer might it step on the existing configuration; however, you should already know what if your current setup and use the custom installation to select that same setup. Users applying a full installer atop an existing installation should ALWAYS be selecting a custom install option. Not allowing the clients to retain their existing configuration when updating or reinstalling the program wouldn't just **** off a lot of consumers but also a lot of corporate customers. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
"VanguardLH" wrote in message ... Mayayana wrote: "VanguardLH" wrote | A troll that goes from free to paid? Not likely. Got any better | evidence? I'm not certain. I block 3 versions of Arlen. Recently I remember he started using a different name. And for a reason I don't recall I've recently blocked . So I thought that was probably Arlen. Then there's the fact that Frank knows of an Arlen alias with the same last name: Davies. I should keep a list of why I block people. Some I remember clearly. Some I don't. Since I don't see Emrys Davies posts I don't see all of this thread, but from what I can see it looks like he's leading people on a long wild goose chase. I started to get that feeling, too (a troll that hides being one and leads the respondents into wasting their time). However, a true troll wouldn't let active respondents off the hook by following any advice to reenable active scripting and the problem went away. Emrys posted to most subthreads to repeat his message that he got Javascript enabled. A true troll would keep feigning inability to follow instructions, ignore those that would solve the problem, pretend intense stupidity, or other ways of tagging along the respondents. If the solution becomes intensely obvious, the troll just leaves the thread. Noobs do that, too: they get a response that is a solution, fix their problem, and are not polite in returning to report on status and what worked. It can be difficult to discern between a true troll and a noob. It was a bit ridiculuous of Emrys to keep reposting the same URL he was given as though that would show others what he saw in his web browser. No one here has a crystal ball or telescope that can bend around the curvature of the planet, get past his window blinds, through his home's walls, and look over his shoulder to see at what he is pointing at. He needed to either describe in detail what he actually saw or take a screenshot and upload it to give a URL to the screenshot. That circuity was suspicious: get a URL of where to test and then give back the same URL as some proof of what he saw there in IE. After suggesting how to check active scripting was enabled in the Internet security zone, Emrys reported a day later of setting it to enabled (which presumes it was disabled). However, no mention at that time if that change fixed his problem. The next day Emrys says Javascript is working. Maybe it was the active scripting setting, possibly something else he did. A troll would probably keep us tagging alone rather than declare the problem fixed. A problem that I've found by giving multiple candidate solutions is that too often the OP focuses on just one of them. Trolls and noobs will focus on just one suggestion (which isn't a solution for them) or just ignore all of them and wander off on something else. Sometimes I prod them to try the other suggestions. If they refuse or simply ignore trying the other suggestions, I leave. I offered help. They won't try. Give up the handholding on a noob with no initiative or the troll leading you on. A good troll can behave just like a noob: exhibiting a very low level of expertise and inability to follow instructions or lack initiative to do any research. Sometimes you can't tell if you're getting suckered by a expert troll or having to handhold a noob. Everyone was a noob at one time on any topic and is still a noob on others. I can work on my own car and even know about its components and how they work inside but still don't have the expertise to actually disassemble and repair all that stuff. Knowing how a CVT works does not mean I can repair one, but not knowing how to repair one doesn't mean that I choose to remain ignorant of how it works and what to expect from one. You amuse me quite a lot with your goings on about possible trollers, but I am surprised that you cannot distinguish between a real troll and someone who is not very computer literate, which is what I am. I was quite good at it (not trolling) some twenty years ago but now, in 89th year, I find that I have forgotten so much of what I learned on various courses. Now, back to Javascript and me thinking that mine was not working. I am quite sure now that for some reason my Javascript 'enable' setting in security was jumping out into 'disabled' although I c. Apply and the necessary OK,s. The same happened with the Avast signature. Now both are working fine hence my clock test which shows: http://notstupid.us/clox/clockie.html. So now if I think that my Javascript is not working or that Avast is showing its signature I will check to see whether they have jumped out of their respective 'enabled' or 'disabled' boxes. Thanks and my best wishes. |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
On 11/9/18 1:54 PM, Paul wrote:
Emrys Davies wrote: Your Avast spam is back again! I had disabled it and now I found that it is back again.Β* I went to its Menu again Settings un-tickedΒ* relevant box Clicked OK.Β* We will see what happens now. When software is re-installed, or there is a major version update, the settings can be reset. It's not necessarily easy to see this, if the software is sneaky in any case. Β*Β* Paul I would consider the spam to be a reason not to use Avast. -- 45 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Q: What do air conditioning and computers have in common? They stop working properly when you open Windows!" |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
On 07/11/2018 17:01, Emrys Davies wrote:
I have Windows 7 and Internet Explorer 11. I have enabled Javascript but it does not work. There are several references to it in the Registry. Can you help. I have noticed that you are still struggling with JavaScript. Can you visit this site and tell us if you have check-marks in all 4 boxes.: http://optout.aboutads.info/?c=2&lang=EN This site will also allow you to opt out of all advertising!!!!!!!!!!!!! in that particular browser. Of course if you are using other browsers then you need to visit the site using other browsers as well. The choice is specific to a browser that visits it. -- With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
"π Good Guy π" wrote in message news
On 07/11/2018 17:01, Emrys Davies wrote:
I have Windows 7 and Internet Explorer 11. I have enabled Javascript but it does not work. There are several references to it in the Registry. Can you help. I have noticed that you are still struggling with JavaScript. Can you visit this site and tell us if you have check-marks in all 4 boxes.: http://optout.aboutads.info/?c=2&lang=EN This site will also allow you to opt out of all advertising!!!!!!!!!!!!! in that particular browser. Of course if you are using other browsers then you need to visit the site using other browsers as well. The choice is specific to a browser that visits it. The Javascript check box has a Tick, the Network Quality box has a X and the other two boxes are blank -- With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
Emrys Davies wrote:
You amuse me quite a lot with your goings on about possible trollers, but I am surprised that you cannot distinguish between a real troll and someone who is not very computer literate, which is what I am. I was quite good at it (not trolling) some twenty years ago but now, in 89th year, I find that I have forgotten so much of what I learned on various courses. A disguised troll behaves just like a noob. That's what makes them often indistinguishable. A troll that uses profanity, insults, or other peurile behavior is obvious. Some like to hide they are trolling thereby waste your time. Of course, they are wasting their time, too, but that's the game they enjoy. It takes several exposures to a disguised troll to realize they are trolling. It's like toilet paper: you get a new brand but may not know if you like it until after a few wipes. By the time you might suspect a disguised troll, they nymshift whereupon they have some more time before getting suspected and then detected as a disguised troll under the new nym. You can only hope in time they devolve into peurile trolls (often the case) to be easily recognizable. Now, back to Javascript and me thinking that mine was not working. I am quite sure now that for some reason my Javascript 'enable' setting in security was jumping out into 'disabled' although I c. Apply and the necessary OK,s. The same happened with the Avast signature. Now both are working fine hence my clock test which shows: http://notstupid.us/clox/clockie.html. Repeating the URL to the test site still does not show anyone /here/ what you /saw/. You repetively and deliberately ignore that fact. You need to save a screenshot, upload THAT, and give the URL to THAT pic to show to /others/. We cannot see your screen to see at what you are pointing or what you are seeing. No one here is using remote access software (e.g., TeamViewer, mikigo, LogMeIn, or some variant of VNC) to see what you see on your screen. Glad to know you got Javascript working. Some users disable it because they are paranoid about how it can be abused at malicious sites or used for tracking them during their web surfing (yet they're oblivious to how WebRTC can be used for tracking and leave it enabled). However, Javascript has become pervasive in the Web as a means of providing dynamic content and an interactive site. Many sites are unreadable or unusable without Javascript enabled. Rather than a simple on-off switch for Javascript, a better alternative would be a graduated feature set option that lets you decide just how much of Javascript or how invasive its functions would be allowed globally by default but with a whitelist of exceptions. Just because I want to allow some Javascript doesn't mean I want all of it enabled but it's currently an all or nothing option. I'd like to see its functions categorized and give the user the choice of which categories of functions to allow. This is similar to permissions in Android: you can globally block all permssions, or allow them but choose which permissions an app can have. So now if I think that my Javascript is not working or that Avast is showing its signature I will check to see whether they have jumped out of their respective 'enabled' or 'disabled' boxes. Jumping out of their previous setting means something does that and why I wondered if you have other software that is altering those settings. The programs themselves (IE and Avast) don't alter their user configuration. You have to go in and do that. Some possibilities of other sources (than you or the programs themselves) making changes to those settings are tweakers (but you have to run those) and security software (beyond just the anti-virus portion of an AV program, or some other anti-malware security program), or state restorers (restore to a prior state of the drive upon OS restart). The list is rather long and I'm sure that I'll forget some types of software that could step on the settings. If I set an option a specific way and found later it got changed without me being involved, I'd start hunting around to see what was running on my computer as something is behaving maliciously (which could be malware or just some interferring software with an unwanted "feature" or you configured it wrong). If you uninstall the Mail Shield module in Avast, nothing (you, malware, the program itself, an update, a tweaker, etc) can reenable the spam signature - because that module would be present to be altering your messages (e-mail or newsgroups). That module affords no more protection than does the on-demand (real-time) scanner. The Mail Shield scanner uses the on-demand scanner but designed to interrogate the content of e-mail traffic upon arrival. Only when you extract an attachment which creates a file can the decoded text string in a MIME part be possibly executable. Yet when a file gets created, the on-demand scanner will scan that new file. All the Mail Shield does is change /when/ a malicious attachment in e-mail gets detected. Instead of waiting for you to later decode the MIME part in an e-mail (extract the attachment) into a new file and then see if it was malicious using the on-demand scanner, the Mail Shield does the same check using the on-demand scanner but at the time the e-mail traffic arrives. Detection coverage hasn't changed or been improved, only when it gets performed. However, e-mail interrogation can cause problems. The client issues a send for a new outbound e-mail but the AV's proxy intercepts the e-mail traffic to inspect it. That adds delay between when the client tells the servere it is sending a new message to when the mail server gets and ends receiving the new message. That added delay can cause an timeout error in the client or server having to wait too long. For short text-only messages, the delay is miniscule. For huge-sized e-mails where you write a tomb of text or have a big attachment or lots of them, it takes time to scan all that content, so the delay gets longer. The same timeout can occur when receiving e-mail: the client waits for the server to finish but times out waiting for the AV's e-mail scanner to finish inspecting the message. The AV's proxy adds another link in the chain, and the longer the chain the more fragile it becomes. If the AV's proxy becomes unresponsive (dead), you can't send or receive e-mail. There is no advantage in their Mail Shield, or the equivalent in other AVs. It's bloat to make their product have a larger feature set but with no added malware detection coverage. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
Mark Lloyd wrote:
I would consider the spam to be a reason not to use Avast. Do you drive a car with decals, emblems, a grill logo on it denoting manufacturer, model, engine size, or dealer? You're spamming as you drive down the street. Pretty tough to find a car without all the spam decals or emblems - but you could remove them. While I don't request removal of the glued-on or integral emblems added by the manufacturer, I tell dealers that I will charge them $50/month if they slap their decal on my newly bought car from them. Sure enough, their "prep" service will add the decal and I remind them of the advertising condition, so they have their prep boys remove the decal (and then I inspect the paint underneath to see if it need refinishing or some seal coat). Bet those jeans you wear have Levi, Lee, or some other brand placard on them as well as your sneakers. With Avast, and unlike your car and clothing, removing the spam is pretty easy: just change a setting (or don't bother installing their superfluous Mail Shield module). Is just a product's signature within the body of a message considered spam? If they used a valid signature delimiter line, anyone with a client that can be configured to hide signatures won't bother with having to see the spammy sig. But is hiding considered sufficient enough to no longer being spammy? If not then consider all those AVs whether on the client or server side that add headers to a message denoting the results of their scan. If a hidden signature is not sufficient to qualify as not spammy then neither are headers with the same announcement of the results in using an AV. After all, just because you don't see the headers by default doesn't mean other viewers do not or that you never look at the headers. Just switch off the sig option. Pretty easy. I do agree that Avast (who I use) has gotten too spammy in their free products. The default is to spam the messages (e-mail and newsgroups) of their users. Unless you use its silent mode, Avast will use their product as an adware platform to issue popups at you about their products. However, unlike Android apps that are "free" but the cost is shoving ads from anyone that wants to advertize, Avast is only spamming their own products, not someone else's. Yet look at all the free apps with ad banners and fullscreen ads that Android users endure. I refuse to use those apps. I also just switch off the spam from Avast, so neither I or others are afflicted by their self-promoting spam. But then signatures are pervasively spam. They are off-topic (the posters don't create them on-the-fly when they compose a message to make them on-topic to the body or subject of the message) and often ego-stroking fluff or stupid MOTDs (message of the day). Even if the sig is informational, like telling how to de-obfuscate the e-mail in the From header, it is off-topic from the message plus discussions in Usenet should stay in Usenet and not be taken offline via e-mail. Sigs, by their very nature and typical use, are spam. I configure my NNTP client to hide them. Fluff, off-topic, ego-stroking, MOTD, demunge info ... just junk. I do wish Avast would be forthright enough to use a valid signature delimiter line, though. Then my client would hide their spam sigs. I'll have to look at modifying my script that strips out the worthless PGP sigs that some posters think anyone is going to lookup to validate their authenticity, and add stripping out Avast's pseudo-sigs. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
On 11/9/18 2:49 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Mark Lloyd" wrote | BTW, no one said anything about "don't use document.all". I wrote this | several years ago, an wanted something that would work on MSIE 4 | (because I wanted to). | document.all is inefficient redundancy. We got into a debate about a similar thing in a scripting group recently: document.GetElementById. What group and what subject? A lot of people are used to using those but they actually serve no purpose. Neither one makes any sense. It just references the document object and its collection of tags for no reason. clock itself (if set as ID) is a referrable object. IE only, see below. I tried that in a modified from of my clock, at http://notstupid.us/clox/clockie2.html . In other words, once you've assigned an ID, that's a top-level object, just like document. If you assign multiple IDs the same then you can access them by index. That works in all browsers. This works in all browsers IF "all browsers" means "Internet Explorer ONLY". It does not work in Firefox (I tried several versions), Chrome, Opera, or Safari. The JavaScript console on Firefox indicates "ReferenceError: clock is not defined". Although your suggestion does work properly in IE, it's failure to work in other browsers (I develop in Firefox) is probably why I didn't consider it here. I had first encountered this when I needed to have JS display a message. In HTML I defined a SPAN: SPAN ID=debug/SPAN And, in javascript: var debug = document.getElementById('debug'); This works fine in all browsers except IE. IE has a variable conflict, so the JS variable has to be different from the ID. document.all does work in all modern browsers. BTW, Edge (Win 10) caused the most trouble. It kept on doing a BING SEARCH instead of going to the URL like it was told to. "Address bar" searching is a really bad idea, although most others do it better. -- 45 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Q: What do air conditioning and computers have in common? They stop working properly when you open Windows!" |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
"FredW" wrote
| If this signature is the only reason for you to discard an otherwise | good product, you have no idea of the real world and all kind of spam | that is present in almost all software. | I've never seen any software that does that, and I've set up friends with Avast in the past. I don't use AV myself. Adding a custom signature to email software is a very intrusive thing to do. I'd be very surprised if I found that some kind of software had done that, and it's very unlikely I'd keep that software. It's intruding on personal settings and altering personal correspondence. On the other hand, if people are not going to pay for software then that's the price. The really obnoxious spam is the iPhone and Android spam. People do pay a lot for those devices. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
"Mark Lloyd" wrote
| document.all is inefficient redundancy. We | got into a debate about a similar thing in a scripting | group recently: document.GetElementById. | | What group and what subject? | microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript The subject was "Mysterious error... something. It's the second most recent post. | A lot of people are used to using those but | they actually serve no purpose. Neither one | makes any sense. It just references the document | object and its collection of tags for no reason. | clock itself (if set as ID) is a referrable object. | | IE only, see below. Try this in Firefox or anything else: -------------------------- HTML HEAD /HEAD BODY DIV ID="div1" /DIV SCRIPT div1.innerText="okey doke"; /SCRIPT /BODY/HTML ---------------------------------- An ID is an object reference. | | I tried that in a modified from of my clock, at | http://notstupid.us/clox/clockie2.html . | It didn't work because you have NAME="clock". (Though you skipped the quotes, which is not proper HTML. I don't know whether that could cause problems.) The NAME attribute *is* IE-only. The ID is standard, recognized as an object in both scripting and CSS. I switched NAME to ID (and took the liberty of adding an HTML tag) and it works fine in FF, even without the quotes around clock. I find that generally browsers are very forgiving, but there's really no reason to take a chance by doing things like skipping quotes or required tags. | I had first encountered this when I needed to have JS display a message. | In HTML I defined a SPAN: | | SPAN ID=debug/SPAN | | And, in javascript: | | var debug = document.getElementById('debug'); | | This works fine in all browsers except IE. IE has a variable conflict, | so the JS variable has to be different from the ID. | That's a different issue. Since debug is already an ID it's just asking for trouble to use it as a variable. It *is* a variable as an ID, so essentially you've made a duplicate declaration. If other browsers allowed it that doesn't make it valid. Why would you do that, anyway? At best it makes your code unnecessarily ambiguous. And in this case it's entirely redundant. You don't need that line at all. It's like calling yourself on the phone. debug is already the variable you're trying to assign. | BTW, Edge (Win 10) caused the most trouble. It kept on doing a BING | SEARCH instead of going to the URL like it was told to. "Address bar" | searching is a really bad idea, although most others do it better. | Yes. I hate that. I've noticed that a lot of non-techie people have got so used to it that they think it's normal to go to acme.com by way of Google, not understanding that they can just type in the URL and go directly. Exactly what Google wants to happen. It allows them to track nearly all activity at the source. (Except with Edge, I guess. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
On 11/10/18 4:32 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Mark Lloyd" wrote | document.all is inefficient redundancy. We | got into a debate about a similar thing in a scripting | group recently: document.GetElementById. | | What group and what subject? | microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript It looks like I found that discussion. That is om a Microsoft-specific group, and "vbscript" isn't "javascript" (which is why I didn't find it the first time). The subject was "Mysterious error... something. It's the second most recent post. [snip] It didn't work because you have NAME="clock". (Though you skipped the quotes, which is not proper HTML. I don't know whether that could cause problems.) The NAME attribute *is* IE-only. Not for the INPUT tag, which I had to use. The ID is standard, recognized as an object in both scripting and CSS. I switched NAME to ID (and took the liberty of adding an HTML tag) and it works fine in FF, even without the quotes around clock. Changing NAME to ID does make this work (sorry I forgot about the IE oddity of equating NAME and ID), as in the example. Thanks for providing a way of simplifying my code. I may be able to eliminate a lot of uses of getElementById. However, did you notice that I was using an INPUT tag (not SPAN or DIV) and the VALUE attribute (not tag content)? This is because I was writing the code for IE4, which doesn't support changing tag content. That code worked OK for seeing if JavaScript was working, but it's original purpose was to get something working on IE4. [snip] That's a different issue. Since debug is already an ID it's just asking for trouble to use it as a variable. It *is* a variable as an ID, so essentially you've made a duplicate declaration. This isn't a problem except in IE. If other browsers allowed it that doesn't make it valid. No, but more so that IE allowing it makes it valid. Why would you do that, anyway? At best it makes your code unnecessarily ambiguous. and different names makes it more complicated. Although, if your way works it could be even simpler (and I don't have to keep writing document.getElementById). [snip] -- 45 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Q: What do air conditioning and computers have in common? They stop working properly when you open Windows!" |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
"Mark Lloyd" wrote
| It didn't work because you have NAME="clock". | (Though you skipped the quotes, which is not proper | HTML. I don't know whether that could cause problems.) | The NAME attribute *is* IE-only. | | Not for the INPUT tag, which I had to use. | Yes. Confusing, now that you mention it. w3schools says you can use NAME as a scripting object. In my experience that's not true, so I just avoid it altogether unless I need something like multiple unique IDs in an HTA. That's what I meant above -- that using it in scripting as an object variable is IE-only. I guess ID also started making more sense when CSS became popular, because that treats ID as a unique referrer as well -- essentially an object variable. But NAME is used as an object of sorts with INPUT, to identify a field. And for an OBJECT PARAM or META tag, NAME is actually a keyword! Weird stuff. Also, I don't get why youy say you had to use INPUT. Normally that would be specifically for typing into. This works fine: LABEL ID="clock" SIZE=30Needs javascript/LABEL .... clock.innerText = mons[mo] + ' ' + da ....etc. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|