Am I being dumb here - could we not just run some checks on the user-
agent header and respond appropriately?
It would be very cool if SHtml was browser aware.
Cheers
Tim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Browser detection is a really bad idea, and I would recommend avoiding
it at all costs. A much better solution is object detection.
Here's one pretty good description about why this is so:
http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/objectdetection.html
Here's another:
Great feedback - thanks guys!
I'll re-jig the PDT stuff to make it more like your suggestions.
Regarding the IPN pay pal stuff - I was having a think about this and
thought that it would be good to do something along the same lines of
ajax_requst.
For instance, when you configure IPN you have
Charles ... this is not only about JS level. One may simply click a
link or submit a simple form (with NO JS involved) and lift should
probably be aware of browser type it can correct some browser specific
idiosyncrasies in the resulting markup. Certain applications may need
for instance to
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charles F. Munat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, I forgot that you were talking server-side. Hmm. I'll have to think
about this.
For mobile browsers, are you talking ones that use WML? (Does anyone
still use that?) For something like that, I think you could
It would be nice to have some control over this. I work on a site
where we forward users to the iPhone version of the site when they
access / and their user agent matches the iPhone (or iPod Touch) user
agent. But, we also provide them with a link to view the full version
of the site.
This is
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Tim Perrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I being dumb here - could we not just run some checks on the user-
agent header and respond appropriately?
It would be very cool if SHtml was browser aware.
Yes... that's what I'm suggesting. Right now, I think the
I hope it was pleasant :)
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Oliver Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forget that - brain had gone for a holiday.
On 26/09/2008, at 12:04 PM, Oliver wrote:
Hi
Say I want to have a onMouseOver call a javascript function - How?
// this doesnt work - I want to
Not the most popular option out there but I generally detect IE6 from the
agent string and redirect to the Get Firefox page ;)
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Marius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles ... this is not only about JS level. One may simply click a
link or submit a simple form
Marius wrote:
+1.
So is anyone taking ownership on this? ... I could add this support
within a week or two maybe.
I'd rather you continue to work on the Record/Field stuff.
Can we get another taker on this project? Tyler... are you too busy
with the book? Jorge... got time? Someone
Cool.
On Sep 26, 7:40 pm, David Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marius wrote:
+1.
So is anyone taking ownership on this? ... I could add this support
within a week or two maybe.
I'd rather you continue to work on the Record/Field stuff.
Can we get another taker on this project?
In my HTML output there is a script that begins:
// ![CDATA[
var lift_ajaxQueue = [];
var lift_ajaxInProcess = null;
var lift_ajaxShowing = false;
var lift_ajaxRetryCount = 3
Is there an easy way to make this download as a separate .js file
instead of inline? Or to suppress it if I'm not using
Is there an easy way to make this download as a separate .js file
instead of inline? Or to suppress it if I'm not using AJAX at all?
Having it inline decreases the number of requests the browser must make.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Charles F. Munat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my HTML
I also lost half a day with this error. Is this rule at least documented
anywhere?
Regards,
Mateusz
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Charles F. Munat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, ha! I knew it had to be something simple like that. Good to know
that hidden-templates can't reuse the names of
Charles F. Munat wrote:
In my HTML output there is a script that begins:
// ![CDATA[
var lift_ajaxQueue = [];
var lift_ajaxInProcess = null;
var lift_ajaxShowing = false;
var lift_ajaxRetryCount = 3
Is there an easy way to make this download as a separate .js file
instead of inline?
Daniel Green wrote:
Is there an easy way to make this download as a separate .js file
instead of inline? Or to suppress it if I'm not using AJAX at all?
Having it inline decreases the number of requests the browser must make.
True. But that's one hit and then it's cached. Putting it in the
Done.
http://liftweb.net/index.php/LiftTags#surround
Chas.
Mateusz Fiołka wrote:
I also lost half a day with this error. Is this rule at least documented
anywhere?
Regards,
Mateusz
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Charles F. Munat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Pollak wrote:
BTW, the script element on this script needs a type=text/javascript
attribute or it fails validation.
What validator?
The W3C validator for XHTML:
http://validator.w3.org/
BTW, if you use Firefox you can add the Web Developer Plugin:
Given Lift's focus on security I envisioned that the POST URL would
contain a random element, to reduce the threat of fake PayPal
interactions. It is a small risk, but then it is the small risks that
usually allow a hacker in, eventually.
David said there was support for per session
Well, I figured out what's going on. RequestVar and SessionVar depend
upon their *class name* for uniqueness. So, you can't just create a
RequestVar instance and expect uniqueness, and in fact if you create a
RequestVar as a member of a reusable superclass like my JNDIResource,
even with a
20 matches
Mail list logo
