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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
On 11/11/18 7:52 AM, Mayayana wrote:
[snip] 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. 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. 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 know them. Normally that would be specifically for typing into. This works fine: LABEL ID="clock" SIZE=30Needs javascript/LABEL ... clock.innerText = mons[mo] + ' ' + da ....etc. IE5 was the first version of IE to allow JavaScript access to the text 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 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "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 |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
"Mark Lloyd" wrote
| BTW, I noticed you put quotation marks around "clock", but not around "30". | 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... https://www.w3schools.com/htmL/html_attributes.asp ....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 those.) 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. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
Mayayana wrote:
"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. 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. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Javascript is enabled but it does not work.
"VanguardLH" wrote
| I use Avast, I didn't bother installing their superfluous Mail Shield | module 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|