Lamee Wouter wrote:
> Netscape's JavaScript and the ECMA-262 specification are very closely
> linked. As you may remember, Netscape was the original developer of
> JavaScript, with subsequent releases of Microsoft browsers supporting
> 'something similar' under the name JScript
[...]
> Note however that ECMA-262 only describes the language itself, not the HTML
> reflection
[...]
> 'official' standard (and for Microsoft's version), it has also become the de
> facto standard, which - in this case - carries a lot more weight than it
> being a standard.
While it is quite likely the case that the Voyager JS implementation
is lacking even with "clean" code, many of the problems are related to
the webmasters' lack of adherence to even those "standards" you've
outlined above.
I am quite willing to believe that the typical site (and I'm not
limiting this to amatuer sites either - big corporations and companies
are just as bad) is tested by the simple expedient of "does it look
right in MSIE?" and, if they're being considerate, "does it look
passable in Netscape?".
Even people like myself, whose JS knowledge is not-quite nonexistant,
can tell that many sites' code is complete rubbish. Checking for
"version 5" of a browser to see if some JS feature is supported, or
even taking advantage of some nonstandard implementation is just poor
coding and no excuse.
MSIE in particular seems very tolerant of missing brackets, malformed
expressions, questionable function calls. If it weren't, a lot more
sites would have been coded better.
Regards,
Ian
===
_____________________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - http://v3.vapor.com/
Voyager FAQ....: http://faq.vapor.com/voyager/
Listserver Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=HELP
Unsubscribe....: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE
