At Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:40:31 -0700, Jason Fesler wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Niall O'Reilly <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the case > > mentioned, it looks as if application error HTTP 404 is being > > interpreted as indicating IPv6 network target unreachable. Isn't > > this a layering misinterpretation? > > Yes. But I have limits on what I can do in JavaScript, without > invoking browser specific or even operating system specific code, or > depending on plugins. I can (as far as I know) only detect success, > failure, and timeout. Above all, I want the site to operate purely on > simple clean javascript that works on any popular browser, and > ideally, even the unpopular javascript-enabled browsers.
I fear that "simple clean javascript that works on any popular browser" may be an unattainable goal. The jQuery library attempts to provide a uniform abstraction layer above the particular behaviour of individual browsers. I've found it useful, but my experience is limited, so I can't say whether it achieves all you'll need. > FWIW: I always check IPv4 as a control measure. I only complain when > IPv6 fails but IPv4 worked. This catches the case of apache httpd > being down; it catches power down; it doesn't catch more subtle > problems. When the control is down, I discount it from the list of > failures (grey instead of red; and the ISP test in particular stops > counting it). > > Not perfect; but if you can help me improve on this in a way that > keeps my goal of simple javascript, I'm very much interested in your > ideas. In some cases, it may be as simple as expertise (since > JavaScript is not my "native tongue", so to speak). We both share that pedigree! 8-) > Thanks for the feedback! And thanks for taking the time to read the > document. A lot of people have put a lot of time into that document > already. I'm hoping ultimately the community finds the document (and > the site) useful. Thanks for revealing more of the picture to me. ATB Niall
