altering text with javascript

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

No, that's the point of an issue against a specification - the
specification isn't clear, or is dubious in its nature etc. hence the
issue - The element is suspect until the issue is resolved. (like a
law that is being reviewed by a constitutional court, the law is
suspect)

That still does not invalidate the Specification.
It makes it to be questioned, that's all. And that is good so.

Lots of UA tests wouldn't prove it, there'd always be another UA, so
that proof method wouldn't be acceptable to me.

So you agree that there is no method to provide a strong proof
that your bold statement is true and thus it must be false. Fine.

No it does not!

It depends on the UA, since it depends on the script engine used by (and
available for) this app. If you would understand a first thing about what
is a user agent, you would not be stamping your foot.

Or prove it...

Use

<script type="text/vbscript" language="VBScript">
Dim x
</script>

prior to an intrinsic event handler attribute value in IE, and
you have the proof. Even if that would not work as expected,
it would be pretty clear that it depends on the interpreting
software what the default scripting language is.

(please don't actually bother...)

You are the one to still bother about proving your statements,
not me.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

2. That this feature does not have a benefit remains to be
proven. Since you state that it does not have one, you
are the one to prove it. If you cannot prove it or you
are not willing to do so, your statement remains false,
and: By repeating false statements (over and over again)
they do not become more true. [psf 4.18] Period.

It is not possible to prove anything logically.

This is utter nonsense or as you would call it, "Bullshit!"

But any non-metaphysical theory can be demonstrated to be false
(disproved) if it is false. You are the one asserting that the
theory is false so the onus is on your to present the evidence
that disproves it.

I have not stated it is "bogus", Jim has. However, I have the
Recommendation of a supposed-to-be competent HTML WG that resulted in a
public Specification and no convincing proof that makes me to disbelieve
it/them: My UAs, i.e. the UAs I have tested with, are not necessarily the
most standards compliant ones, even if they call themselves standards
compliant or work in a Standards Compliance Mode.


EOD

PointedEars

 

[Richard Cornford]

Richard Cornford wrote:

This is utter nonsense or as you would call it, "Bullshit!"

I take it the study of epistemology has remained outside of your
experience to date.

I have not stated it is "bogus", Jim has.

<snip>

Yes, that was Jim's assertion. Stronger wording I would have used, but
not a statement that can be dismissed for that reason.

Jim's assertion corresponds with all available empirical evidence, is
refutable (in that one example of a browser that cared about the META
element, or corresponding HTTP header, would disprove it (thus avoiding
it being categorised as metaphysical [1])), and is yet to be refuted.
And that (much as I expect you not to recognise it) is the criteria for
a scientific[2] 'truth'; a theory. It is not possible to know that such
a theory is true (it cannot be proved), but it is possible to know that
it is false (if it were), because it _is_ refutable.

You can assert that Jim's statement is false (and deduce that on any
irrational gourds you like) but _if_ Jim's statement is false you would
be in a position to disprove (refute, or falsify) it.

Richard.

[1] Being irrefutable (in a non-rhetorical sense) is the quality that
defines the metaphysical. It isn't a good quality for an assertion to
possess because it just means that nothing can be decided about it one
way or another, ever.

[2] On these criteria science progresses through the creation of new
theories that accurately describe the available evidence, and the
elimination of those (and existing theories) by their refutation
(falsification, or disproving). Thus the problem that it is impossible
to prove anything true is avoided because the totality of scientific
knowledge becomes more-true (less-false) over time through the
elimination of the false theories.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I take it the study of epistemology has remained outside of your
experience to date.

I take it that you want to read
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument> pp.


PointedEars

 

[Richard Cornford]

I take it that you want to read
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument> pp.

No, it is a less than authoritative article that skirts the issue.
Reading it contributed nothing.

Richard.

 

[Philo Hippo]

Lots of UA tests wouldn't prove it, there'd always be another UA, so

So you agree that there is no method to provide a strong proof
that your bold statement is true and thus it must be false. Fine.

are you calling true what you cannot prove false???? People used to get
butned on the stakes thanks to people like that!!!

--

Hope that helps,

Phil
http://uk.geocities.com/philippeoget
philippeoget at yahoo dot com

Programming Excel: <a
href="http://uk.geocities.com/philippeoget/xl/InternetLinkOrganiser.zip"
target="_blank">The Excel A2Z Project: </a>
http://uk.geocities.com/philippeoget/a2z/