document.all evaluates to false but document.all['chicken'] gets the item with ID - Mozilla madness!

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Jim Ley, Jul 24, 2004.

  1. Jim Ley

    Jim Ley Guest

    Hi,

    It seems the mozilla guys have chosen another (almost certainly poor
    choice in my initial thoughts) of having document.all evaluate to
    false, but document.all['chicken'] catch the chicken event - also
    document.all.tags will work.

    It seems that the document.all not evaluating to true is to stop the
    really dumb object assumption scripts to fail and the document.all
    scripts that don't bother with any object detection to all of a sudden
    "work".

    A shame, actual IE emulation would've made much more sense.

    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248549

    Jim..
     
    Jim Ley, Jul 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: document.all evaluates to false but document.all['chicken']gets the item with ID - Mozilla madness!

    (Jim Ley) writes:

    > It seems the mozilla guys have chosen another (almost certainly poor
    > choice in my initial thoughts) of having document.all evaluate to
    > false, but document.all['chicken'] catch the chicken event - also
    > document.all.tags will work.

    ....
    > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248549


    Yes, it seems to have status RESOLVED/FIXED, so I guess that means
    that it is in (apparently in the birds version 1.0). Bummer. I had
    hoped they would stand by this one
    <URL:http://www.mozilla.org.uk/docs/proprietary-features-bad.html>

    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
    DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
    'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
     
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Jul 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim Ley

    Grant Wagner Guest

    Re: document.all evaluates to false but document.all['chicken'] gets theitem with ID - Mozilla madness!

    Jim Ley wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > It seems the mozilla guys have chosen another (almost certainly poor
    > choice in my initial thoughts) of having document.all evaluate to
    > false, but document.all['chicken'] catch the chicken event - also
    > document.all.tags will work.
    >
    > It seems that the document.all not evaluating to true is to stop the
    > really dumb object assumption scripts to fail and the document.all
    > scripts that don't bother with any object detection to all of a sudden
    > "work".
    >
    > A shame, actual IE emulation would've made much more sense.


    The shame of it is that _any_ IE emulation will simply delay the authoring
    of standards-compliant scripts.

    innerHTML was an acceptable compromise because it is useful functionality
    that could only be replaced by complex createElement() activities.
    Including document.all.tags when there is an easy, standards-compliant
    mechanism to do the same thing is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

    I guess we can look forward to badly written scripts that use proprietary
    features for many, many years to come.

    --
    Grant Wagner <>
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
     
    Grant Wagner, Jul 26, 2004
    #3
  4. Jim Ley

    DU Guest

    Re: document.all evaluates to false but document.all['chicken'] getsthe item with ID - Mozilla madness!

    Grant Wagner wrote:

    > Jim Ley wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Hi,
    >>
    >>It seems the mozilla guys have chosen another (almost certainly poor
    >>choice in my initial thoughts) of having document.all evaluate to
    >>false, but document.all['chicken'] catch the chicken event - also
    >>document.all.tags will work.
    >>
    >>It seems that the document.all not evaluating to true is to stop the
    >>really dumb object assumption scripts to fail and the document.all
    >>scripts that don't bother with any object detection to all of a sudden
    >>"work".
    >>
    >>A shame, actual IE emulation would've made much more sense.

    >
    >
    > The shame of it is that _any_ IE emulation will simply delay the authoring
    > of standards-compliant scripts.
    >
    > innerHTML was an acceptable compromise because it is useful functionality
    > that could only be replaced by complex createElement() activities.
    > Including document.all.tags when there is an easy, standards-compliant
    > mechanism to do the same thing is totally unacceptable in my opinion.
    >
    > I guess we can look forward to badly written scripts that use proprietary
    > features for many, many years to come.
    >
    > --
    > Grant Wagner <>
    > comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
    >
    >



    I entirely agree with your opinions and with Jim's and Lasse's opinions
    on this. The thing is that Mozilla.org is opening the door to more
    compromises of this sort and to more "smart compatibility" with
    IE-specific ways to do DHTML scripts. The message that is sent with this
    support of document.all[idElement] is that it is no longer beneficial to
    resort to W3C web standards methods anymore. What's the use of notifying
    users (or web authors, does not matter really) that
    "Non-standard document.all property was used. Use W3C standard
    document.getElementById() instead." if the mozilla browser is going to
    support document.all anyway?? The message is recommending a
    practice that no longer brings any kind of benefit; in fact, the
    IE-specific way now brings the benefit of code size reduction. Where's
    the incentive to make a page code more interoperable across browsers and
    web-aware devices by making it compliant in the first place then?
    I don't agree with this.

    For over 2 years, many evangelization documents
    {
    Using Web Standards in Your Web Pages
    http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74952
    and
    Updating DHTML Web Pages for next generation browsers
    http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2001/updating-dhtml-web-pages/#codefork
    and
    the whole Gecko DOM reference
    }
    failed to be accurate and reliable (not even without markup errors!) at
    mozilla.org. It is obvious to first start with sanitizing these files
    first before going into drastic directions/actions like that bugfile
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248549
    went.

    Mozilla never was able to promote proactively and coherently W3C web
    standards when, on 1 hand, mozilla.org webpages were promoting W3C web
    standards that mozilla.org failed (or refused) to implement into its own
    webpages.

    One last thing. I think Lasse, Jim and yourself would be interested into
    getting involved in bug 74952 and bug 93108
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74952
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93108
    I sure would be interested into hearing suggestions (and/or feedback on
    mine) regarding bug 74952.

    DU
     
    DU, Aug 2, 2004
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stefan Mueller
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    534
    Steven Saunderson
    Jul 10, 2006
  2. Lew
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,347
    Frank Cisco
    Feb 21, 2009
  3. Marius Horak

    Madness, I call it madness

    Marius Horak, Jun 4, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net Datagrid Control
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    166
    Raterus
    Jun 4, 2004
  4. Steve Vertigan

    boolean madness: false is the new true?

    Steve Vertigan, Sep 16, 2006, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    115
    J├╝rgen Exner
    Sep 16, 2006
  5. libsfan01
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    254
    Jeff North
    Dec 20, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page