comp.lang.javascript Google Group

Re: help re removing my invalid.com

2010-03-21T01:56:41Z

I see - had not realised that.
re that other matter - I think I may have got the message?!
[link]
Cheers
Geoff

Re: FAOENTRY - canvas

2010-03-21T01:38:59Z

But it does imply the inclusion of the related topics. The point is
that inclusion of VML/SVG would complicate the FAQ IMO, and HTML
Canvas is the foot in the door.
How about this?
[link]

Re: For all those jQuery fanboys

2010-03-21T01:25:56Z

No, ES4 primarily killed itself according to BE. After some major
components of ES4 were deemed unfit for the browser, the rest kind of
fell away as being syntactic sugar for simpler constructs:
[link]

FAQ Topic - What are object models? (2010-03-21)

2010-03-21T00:00:03Z

------------------------------ ------------------------------ -----------
FAQ Topic - What are object models?
------------------------------ ------------------------------ -----------
Object models (OMs) are not part of the ECMAScript language; they
are provided by the host to allow javascript (or other scripting

Re: FAOENTRY - canvas

2010-03-20T20:45:17Z

In comp.lang.javascript message <19abbdf4-8cb8-448c-afbe-d4038 8a1b4a8@x1
2g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:55:48, "Michael Haufe
(\"TNO\")" <t...@thenewobjective.com> posted:
Suggesting inclusion of something does not imply suggesting the
exclusion of something else. I don't know enough about either to

Re: FAOENTRY - canvas

2010-03-20T19:28:04Z

In comp.lang.javascript message <ho09av$sl...@news.eternal-
september.org>, Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:38:53, Garrett Smith
<dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> posted:
IE users should see <[link]>.
Those remarks are partly generic for similar systems not directly
implementing those features.

Re: Microsoft and IE9 New Features

2010-03-20T19:00:59Z

In comp.lang.javascript message <y4Odnf8lx-JV9j7WnZ2dnUVZ_v2dn Z2d@gigane
ws.com>, Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:19:20, kangax <kan...@gmail.com> posted:
Provided that no other errors in it are unfixed, and no new ones added.
Yes; but the question was does it fail *nicely*.
Also, <URL:[link]> shows errors

Re: new NewExpression

2010-03-20T23:00:29Z

<snip>
Yes, it was a question on precedent and as it was correctly mentioned
above, `new` has higher precedent than call brackets.
So,
var x = new new A().getB(); // function B
transforms to:
new (new A().getB)();
or simply to
new (new A().getB); as there are no arguments
and to get instance of constructor B we need to use:

Re: QUESTION: Can a function be set up as a constant in JS?

2010-03-20T21:38:33Z

That is _not_ the same code that I had commented on, and it is
unnecessarily complex by comparison, but I'll bite.
If either Variable Object had a `__proto__' property that is not read-only,
subsequent accesses to `a' from within the function would be successful,
because when a function execution context is entered, a VO is created and

Re: Getting computed/current style

2010-03-20T21:33:02Z

[...]
No, the problem is related to getting computed/current style. Before
jumping to conclusions on the final answer, the problem description
needs more detail.
The detail needed is: (1)what specifically is wanted and (2)why/what
situation (what is the OP trying to do).
We also need clarification on terminology for "offset".

Re: QUESTION: Can a function be set up as a constant in JS?

2010-03-20T21:32:17Z

I am getting the distinct idea that you have been trying to waste my time
all along.
Nobody sane uses `new Boolean', though.
I am pretty sure about it now.

Which is why *you* would use a isInstance() instead of `typeof' ...
Get better.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have never suggested this.

Re: QUESTION: Can a function be set up as a constant in JS?

2010-03-20T21:21:57Z

Speak for yourself. :)
What game?
Like hell they are. Server side sniffing is not in widespread use,
except by the most incompetent of server administrators (who should
really be digging ditches instead).
That's a common childish reaction. The point is that there is a _huge_
difference between nearly at the pinnacle and nearly at the pits. Do

Ajax login without SSL

2010-03-20T20:55:07Z

Looking into doing an AJAX login without SSL. I've read a lot about it
and it has been suggested that sending the password hashed in RSA1, then
comparing the hash server-side is adequate.
But is it? I guess it could be vulnerable to a replay attack, but then
wouldn't that be the same regardless of SSL/non-SSL?

Re: QUESTION: Can a function be set up as a constant in JS?

2010-03-20T20:52:25Z

it was even kinda interesting before the end ...
... if you like to think it, please feel free to do it (btw, recycled
typo not even fun anymore ... did you play only that game?)
However, most web servers are still configured to rely into userAgent
strings to redirect pages, serve files, etc etc ... you talk as if you

Re: QUESTION: Can a function be set up as a constant in JS?

2010-03-20T20:24:24Z

It was (and is) a common incompetent technique that was discarded by
professional (and conscientious) developers around the turn of the
century. At some point (hopefully very early) on the learning curve,
aspiring browser script authors realize the futility of relying on a
string of characters that is designed to deceive (e.g. browser