Crud. To be honest, I really don't know.
It's true - your apples example shows document.write
building segments that don't make any sense on
their own.
It seemed to me that in my other example, well,
you have to interpret the jquery syntax to understand
it, but the point is that it says 'write', which
pumps in whatever is in div.innerHTML, and then
immediately afterwards, calls jquery's own
find() method on that html.
frameDoc.write(div.innerHTML);
var $bingImg=$(frameDoc).find("#minimap > img");
But of the two examples, I think you're correct,
because the use of jquery is probably a confound
whereas your apples landing page uses vanilla javascript.
The only thing that bothers me about taking sites.help.org
as a precedent is that they appear to be the ethically
challenged portion of the internet, and this might suggest
that they are less than technically airtight too. For
instance, they make an iframe out of:
www.youtube-nocookie.com
Which is like a phishing trick to deceive you.
But does questionable intent necessarily mean that
their javascript was bad?! Not necessarily but
anyway, I will scout around a little more tomorrow
just to corroborate with a little more usage.
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Edbrowse-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.the-brannons.com/mailman/listinfo/edbrowse-dev
