|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|
On 11/11/18 7:52 AM, Mayayana wrote:
Yes. Confusing, now that you mention it. w3schools
says you can use NAME as a scripting object.
The normal use of NAME is to name the information submitted by a form,
what the INPUT tag is normally used for.
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.
When I first wrote that, if was IE-only (plus Presto versions of Opera),
which was OK since I wanted something that would work on IE4. Recently,
it's working on modern browsers too.
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.
There seems to be a problem here, it's IE4
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_4). I wasn't writing JS
code at the time IE4 was current, so if there are any other ways I don't
Normally that would be specifically for typing into. This
clock.innerText = mons[mo] + ' ' + da ....etc.
within a HTML tag. I use that on all later (and non-IE) browsers.
The INPUT tag provides a way to get around that limitation. Notice that
I'm changing an attribute (value) rather than a text node.
BTW, I noticed you put quotation marks around "clock", but not around "30".
44 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1
"The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative
notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas
--uncertainty, progress, change -- into crimes." --Salman Rushdie
"Mark Lloyd" wrote
| BTW, I noticed you put quotation marks around "clock", but not around
That seems to be another poorly defined detail.
As far as I can tell, it's like CSS: Attributes don't
have to have quotes unless they contain spaces
or special characters. I guess I take the approach
of simplifying things for myself and trying not
to strain browsers, by using quotes for strings
and no quotes for numbers, as one usually
does in programming languages. That mitigates
ambiguity. Though I see a lot of code that quotes
everything. And I guess the browser can't really
reduce ambiguity if it's accepting "30" and 30 for
either string or numeric values. But it seems sloppy
to me. It requires the browser to assess the context.
I think a lot of this dates back to the early days
when people agreed, reasonably I thought, that
HTML should be forgiving and should be rendered
as well as possible, rather than punishing people
for imperfection. A spirit of the law kind of approach.
And it still seems to work that way. The FONT tag
works dependably, for instance, even though it
was phased out years ago, and even if a page is
explicitly marked as HTML5. FONT was "deprecated"
even in HTML4.
I wonder if the quote-mania approach might be
connected with the JSON trend and the general fad
of precision. JSON requires quotes around its INI-style
names, which makes no sense. The values seem to
be like programming: numbers get no quotes while
strings do get quotes.
At this w3schools page...
....they explain that quotes are never required, yet they
recommend always using quotes and say they always use
double quotes. But the source code on that very page
alternates between ' and "! (I didn't see any numeric
values in their code, so I don't know what they do with
I've noticed that Microsoft seems to always quote
both strings and numbers in HTML. On the other hand,
they'd use 6 lines of XML and a GUID on a price sticker
for a piece of fruit.... They're far more interested in
officiality than clarity.... Then they'd offer
certification in fruit price stickering. And we'd be here
debating things like whether "navel orange" has to
be specified as being printed in UTF-8 in the 3rd
line of XML on our price stickers.
| 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
There are other problems with corrupting messages with signatures that
are appended after the client sends a message. For example, if you
digitally sign your messages (performed within your client), modifying
the message afterward means the hash won't match, the message has been
corrupted, and the recipient will get a warning that the message cannot
be trusted because the signature on creation doesn't match the signature
on delivery. The same if you encrypt your messages. If someone sends
you a digitally signed message so you can get their public key and then
reply to them using their key to encrypt your message, anything that
modifies the message body results in a corrupted message and likely can
no longer be decrypted by the sender with their private key.
There is supposed to be only one signature block within a message.
Appending another sigblock, like with Avast, violates the de facto
standard of delineation of just one sigblock. However, Avast doesn't
append a valid sigblock because they don't use a valid signature
delimiter line. So they are sliding their spam into the body of the
message and NOT as a true signature hence they are spamifying the
sender's message. While Gmail and other providers interrogate the
content of your e-mails, even if do to their own spam scanning, they
don't modify the message during transport. Avast is extremely rude and
corruptive to message fidelity.
I use Avast, I didn't bother installing their superfluous Mail Shield
module, but that doesn't mean that I condone Avast in spamifying the
messages of their customers. I also have to use silent mode to avoid
them using their AV as a spam platform. Periodically Avast will decide
to start another marketing campaign and use the adware platform inside
their free products to shove popups at their customers. Silent mode
gets rid of their spam turds; however, it also means all other alerts
are hidden, like when Avast blocks connecting to a hazardous web site or
blocks a download. The action gets blocked but the user won't know why
the site failed to behave because they don't get the popups from Avast
in its silent mode use to get rid of its spam popups.
I tried other free AVs because I grew weary of Avast's spam and their
rude behaviors. I tried Bitdefender free but it was slower than Avast.
That is, responsiveness of my computer slowed with Bitdefender. I've
seen this on more than one host. I tried Avira but its web scanner (Web
Protection in their add-on toolbar) was spyware. No point in going from
adware (that I can disable) to spyware that tracks my web surfing. Plus
I ran into a problem with Avira: if I used a tool that polled the SMART
data from the drives, Avira would begin its own device poll at one
minute intervals. I only caught this on one host that still had a 3.5"
floppy drive when I notice it was groaning at 1-minute intervals after I
queried the SMART data on my HDDs. Avira said they could not reproduce
the problem but I could on every host that I had plus other users were
reporting the same 1-minute queries on their devices.
I ended back up at Avast while disabling its spam sigs along with their
spam popups. Yes, if I paid for Avast then the spam popups go away but
I am NOT rewarding them for their rude message pseudo-sig spam enabled
by default or for employing their freeware as a spam platform.
| I use Avast, I didn't bother installing their superfluous Mail Shield
Maybe that's why I haven't seen the behavior. When
I've installed it for people I've only enabled the actual
AV, and pretty much just for scanning downloads or
new files, if I remember correctly. The default settings
were too restrictive and wasted a lot of resources scanning
every action taken. It's wasteful to do things like scan
a doc every time you resave it.
| I tried Avira but its web scanner (Web
| Protection in their add-on toolbar) was spyware. No point in going from
| adware (that I can disable) to spyware that tracks my web surfing.
I was unaware of Avira until someone sent me an
email saying it was tagging some of my own
software as a known malware strain! I wrote to them
and only got robo-responses. No one's minding the
store at Avira. It turned out that if I made a minor change
in the compile options then my software was suddenly
clean. I don't remember the exact option. I think it
was some kind of efficiency factor, like removing
array bounds checking. I could see their logic the
Without the check it might be more possible to carry
out a buffer overflow attack. But their overall approach
is idiotic. Array bounds checking is something that's
very inefficient and shouldn't be necessary in properly
written software. For Avira to want that is like saying
all bank customers must have their feet tied together
to protect from hit-and-run bandits robbing the bank.
My sense with all of this is that they're all vying for
corporate business, they don't care about the freebie
test base, and they're mainly only concerned about
not letting a bug through. False positives? Email
too crippled to read? Can't download files? Non-commercial
websites blocked? They don't care about any of that
because most people will blame their own ignorance for
their troubles, not realizing the problem is poorly made AV.
So the AV people only care that they get a 99.99%
success rate in stopping bugs.
|Display Modes||Rate This Thread|