Randy said:
John G Harris said the following on 5/30/2006 3:46 PM:
[...] Randy Webb [...] writes
Further, ECMAScript is a theory about how things should be rather than
a reflection of how things really are.
Why do you say this?
Because it is.
It isn't? Can you tell me where to find the specification for innerHTML
in the ECMA documentation?
If you can, then my statement is false.
If you can't, then my statement is true.
No, your logic is flawed.
.innerHTML is very very widely supported yet you won't find it in the
ECMAScript documentation. That alone prevents ECMAScript from being a
reflection of reality and more a theory of how it should be.
ISTM you have yet to understand the basic difference between native
objects and host objects, among many other basic things about Web
development.
You will find no native object (all of them are defined in ECMAScript) to
have a built-in `innerHTML' property; element objects (that can have this
property built-in, depending on the DOM) are host objects, not native
objects. In fact, element objects are provided by the Document Object
Model of the host environment (here: HTML UA), and as such may have other
properties that are not defined in any standard. (Where the corresponding
Web standard here is not ECMA-262, but the W3C DOM, particularly W3C DOM
Level 2 HTML.)
On the other hand, in ECMAScript implementations you will find the Global
Object to have host-defined properties, such as `window'. Those are of
course not defined in the ECMAScript Specification explicitly. However,
ECMAScript allows the Global Object explicitly to have such properties.
Furthermore, known implementation-specific deviations from the
Specification are backed up by the Specification's own Conformance section.
Probably someone has explained all of this (to you) here before.
PointedEars