doc.write and innerHTML is the same thing...it's all writing out html
with _javascript_, and it's old, lame, and slow. I'd though that was
implied. It's all DOM 1. I wouldn't even mind DOM 1 if it was fully
implemented, but it's not
It's clear to me you just like to complain for the sake of
Nicely done on ignoring every point I made, including the request to
back up your false claims about focus. I still feel DW's scripting API
is far less powerful than Homesite's, and I'd welcome any attempt to
prove my any of the facts I laid out in defense of my opinion wrong.
This whole thing
Hey guys, can you give it a rest?
a) no system is perfect for all
b) if you don't like it, suggest a change
my 2 cents
Cutter
jon hall wrote:
Thursday, October 16, 2003, 10:37:33 AM, you wrote:
MTeF I strongly disagree with this. Both about the documentation
and the
MF power
MTeF :-)
Oh
Thursday, October 16, 2003, 12:54:15 AM, you wrote:
MTeF jon hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
MTeF news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, that's the best part about it...but the script API is even less
documented, and less powerful (can't call COM objects) than
Homesite's.
MTeF I strongly
MTeF I strongly disagree with this. Both about the documentation and the
power
MTeF :-)
Oh really... :)
Just tell me about something that you would like to implement as DW's
extension and you can't due to the API's limitations
How exactly does an extremely small subset of DOM 1 that is
Can you send a copy over to me, or send the URL?
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
Thursday, October 16, 2003, 10:37:33 AM, you wrote:
MTeF I strongly disagree with this. Both about the documentation and the
MF power
MTeF :-)
Oh really... :)
MF Just tell me about something that you would like to implement as DW's
MF extension and you can't due to the API's limitations
For
MF Just tell me about something that you would like to implement as DW's
MF extension and you can't due to the API's limitations
For one example, setting focus. Focus needs to be able to be set from
anywhere, to anywhere. This is especially problematic with dynamic
content in a floater as
doc.write being the only way to dynamically alter content is so 5
years ago, slow, and has obvious code maintenance problems. The world has
DOM 2 now. Fourth generation browsers are dead, and doc.write is lame.
Just to be 100% clear. DW API never used document.write(), they use the DOM
since
Thursday, October 16, 2003, 2:20:37 PM, you wrote:
MF Just tell me about something that you would like to implement as DW's
MF extension and you can't due to the API's limitations
For one example, setting focus. Focus needs to be able to be set from
anywhere, to anywhere. This is especially
Anybody else got this far. The product is flaky and some very basic stuff
falls over.
Oh well back to DW. Hope the first patch sorts out a load of stuff.
Adam
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Giving up on DW 2004 MX
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=_NextPart_000_1066204874_CFX_iMSMail_396336621
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
. It is
still a bit kludge at best.
_
From: Clint Tredway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:36 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: re: Giving up on DW 2004 MX
I use it everyday for development and I don't have any issues with it. I use
for CFC stuff for my RIA's.
Other than
annoying bug I've found, but I haven't tried using much
of the advanced features of it yet.
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:33 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Giving up on DW 2004 MX
I have to agree with Clint. DWMX 2K4
Was there something specific you wanted feedback on?
Thanks,
Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Adam Reynolds
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:00 AM
Subject: Giving up on DW 2004 MX
Anybody else got this far. The product is flaky and some very basic stuff
falls over
That's the most annoying bug I've found, but I haven't tried
using much of the advanced features of it yet.
The main issue for me, and one I've posted about on other lists but
haven't gotten responses on, is a real wierd one. It is so wierd I'm
convinced it's my fault and I'm missing a
Nope.Happens to me too.Seems to be an oversight IMHO.
You can't tell _where_ the file is.
But wait - it gets better. I open the file and I _still_ can't see where
the file is. I have to actually do a save as to track it down.
This just seems so wrong... yet it was enough of a problem to
If you're in code view/code pane of split view, have you tried hitting F5
before ctrl-S?
Just a suggestion...
-Scott
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:06 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Giving up on DW 2004 MX
A problem
Message-
From: Patricia G. L. Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:49 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Giving up on DW 2004 MX
Nope.Happens to me too.Seems to be an oversight IMHO.
You can't tell _where_ the file is.
But wait - it gets better. I open the file and I
Nope - because again - I was convinced it was a setting somewhere that
was just hidden. If this is the way it's supposed to be, I'll defintely
report a bug on it.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
This is totally in Code view. THat's where I usually stay, and after I
finish off writing a loop or osmething I typically do a Ctrl - S.
It apparently saves the file, but the asterisk remains.
Only when I click Save All does the asterisk disappear, indicating that
the file is only now being
WEll I'll be. You're right.
Even in Code view, I need to press F5 and then save, before it is
considered Saved.
I don't like that 'feature' if that's what it is.
What's the point of that??
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Scott Fegette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you're in code
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Giving up on DW 2004 MX
WEll I'll be. You're right.
Even in Code view, I need to press F5 and then save, before it is
considered Saved.
I don't like that 'feature' if that's what it is.
What's the point
Sent!
As a bug :-)
I don't think you should ever need to refresh the page in order to save
it/have it recognised as being saved
imNSho. :-)
-Gel
(in my NOT SO humble opinion)
*grin*
-Original Message-
From: Scott Fegette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good to hear that little 'test'
on DW 2004 MX
Nope - because again - I was convinced it was a setting somewhere that
was just hidden. If this is the way it's supposed to be, I'll defintely
report a bug on it.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
DWMX extensions can modify the UI of the application itself?
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
Yeah, that's the best part about it...but the script API is even less
documented, and less powerful (can't call COM objects) than
Homesite's. Once I figured it out, it left me wanting more power.
There is a C API though.
Here is shot of an extension I was making...it's docked on the far
right.
: Raymond Camden
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: Giving up on DW 2004 MX
DWMX extensions can modify the UI of the application itself?
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
jon hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, that's the best part about it...but the script API is even less
documented, and less powerful (can't call COM objects) than
Homesite's.
I strongly disagree with this. Both about the documentation and the power
:-)
29 matches
Mail list logo
