JTF: Javascript Unit Testing Farm

[acemtp]

Hello,

I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
programmer.

It's quite hard to know if some specific code you wrote will work on
all browsers, and if not, why it doesn't work. You often have to
install lot of browsers on your computer, buy a mac or a pc, and make
unit tests.

On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.

I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.

http://jtf.ploki.info

 

[Roman Ziak]

Hello,

I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
programmer.

It's quite hard to know if some specific code you wrote will work on
all browsers, and if not, why it doesn't work. You often have to
install lot of browsers on your computer, buy a mac or a pc, and make
unit tests.

On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.

I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.

http://jtf.ploki.info

This is an interesting project.

I have one suggestion - run one test everytime a visitor enters your
site. This way there will not be discrimination from scripts receving
more attention.

This could be also deployed in the background of busy site. Maybe you
could consider making it a package. Developers would just insert it on
their website either into onload event or into interval timer to get
their scripts tested by their visitors.

I just wonder if there is a legal implication of this, because the
provider would be using the visitor's browser for purposes not related
to the site without their explicit agreement.

 

[electrician]

Thanks for the offer, but I only write for IE 5+. My logic is simple.
I sell continuing education products online. If a person does not have
the money to buy a decent browser and OS then they probably don't have
the money to buy my products. Additionally, the Windows software that
is compatible with IE5+ includes PowerPoint and Frontpage. I use both
these products extensively to develop high volume pages for training
purposes. They are fast and efficient. The W3C standard used by
Netscape, Opera, and FireFox are basic. Adhering to the W3C standards
has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
Products. W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.
Adding the price to produce pages compatible with Netscape, Opera, and
Firefox and the W3C standard to my production budget is not a good
marketing decision and therefore should be avoided.

 

[Evertjan.]

wrote on 30 mrt 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:

Thanks for the offer ....

Please quote what you are replying to.

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the
"Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the
top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article
headers. <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[electrician]

<Hello,

I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
programmer.


It's quite hard to know if some specific code you wrote will work on
all browsers, and if not, why it doesn't work. You often have to
install lot of browsers on your computer, buy a mac or a pc, and make
unit tests.


On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.


I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.


http://jtf.ploki.info >


The offer, as quoted from the original post.

My reply:
Thanks for the offer, but I only write for IE 5+. My logic is simple.
I sell continuing education products online. If a person does not have

the money to buy a decent browser and OS then they probably don't have
the money to buy my products. Additionally, the Windows software that
is compatible with IE5+ includes PowerPoint and Frontpage. I use both
these products extensively to develop high volume pages for training
purposes. They are fast and efficient. The W3C standard used by
Netscape, Opera, and FireFox are basic. Adhering to the W3C standards
has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
Products. W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.
Adding the price to produce pages compatible with Netscape, Opera, and
Firefox and the W3C standard to my production budget is not a good
marketing decision and therefore should be avoided.

 

[Zif]

(e-mail address removed) said on 31/03/2006:
[...]

My reply:

Is this a serious statement or just a troll?

Thanks for the offer, but I only write for IE 5+.

Worse, you write only for IE 5+ on Windows.

My logic is simple.
I sell continuing education products online. If a person does not have

the money to buy a decent browser and OS then they probably don't have
the money to buy my products.

What an arrogant attitude.

If you can't be bothered to invest in your own continuing education and
learn to write decent web pages, why should anyone think your products
are worth paying for?

You are clearly ignorant of web standards, what does that say of your
ability to learn, understand and teach about other matters?

Additionally, the Windows software that
is compatible with IE5+ includes PowerPoint and Frontpage. I use both
these products extensively to develop high volume pages for training
purposes.

PowerPoint runs on other platforms, including ones that aren't even PCs.
FrontPage can make web pages that run on any browser, it is your
choice to make them run only in IE on Windows.

They are fast and efficient.

FrontPage is one of the most criticised pieces of software that
Microsoft has ever produced. It is slow, buggy and creates genuinely
bad pages. That you consider it 'fast and efficient' is a hint as to
your ability to determine what is good software. And a reflection of
the quality of the products you sell.

I have never heard anyone characterise PowerPoint as 'fast and
efficient'. Ever.

The W3C standard used by
Netscape, Opera, and FireFox are basic.

The same standards Microsoft (mostly) adheres to? The ones that
Microsoft even helps to define?

Adhering to the W3C standards
has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
Products.

That is truly laughable. Microsoft has not updated the functionality of
IE in nearly 6 years and it will be another 12 months before they do.
You clearly haven't investigated the extensions available in other browsers.

W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.

Yeah, I think you're a troll. So capitalism eschews standards, right?
I suppose absolutely nothing in a capitalist society is controlled by
any sort of standard, after all, they are such a communist concept.

Those pinko bastards a the W3C - who the heck are they? Here they are;

<URL:http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List>

A few of turncoats: Microsoft, IBM, Apple, AT&T, Yahoo, Google, Sun...

Adding the price to produce pages compatible with Netscape, Opera, and
Firefox and the W3C standard to my production budget is not a good
marketing decision and therefore should be avoided.

Oh, somebody stop me! You want others to spend money to buy a PC and
software so they can use your products when you are too lousy to invest
a small amount of time and effort to make your products standards compliant?

I guess you don't see the hypocrisy.

 

[acemtp]

This is an interesting project.

Thank you.

I have one suggestion - run one test everytime a visitor enters your
site. This way there will not be discrimination from scripts receving
more attention.

That's what it's happen already. test cases are running in background
task using timers and iframes.

This could be also deployed in the background of busy site. Maybe you
could consider making it a package. Developers would just insert it on
their website either into onload event or into interval timer to get
their scripts tested by their visitors.

I thought about that but I don't really think that anyone will add
background tests to his website.

I just wonder if there is a legal implication of this, because the
provider would be using the visitor's browser for purposes not related
to the site without their explicit agreement.

That's a good question and I don't have the answer. But just take a
look at google analytics that get all information about visitors
(screen resolution, java, domain, geo location, languages...).

 

[sam.partington]

On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.

I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.

http://jtf.ploki.info

An excellent idea. I've been trying to think about a good solution to
something like this before. It also has the capability of becoming a
resource for high quality tested library code.

I have a number of suggestions for improvements :

1. It would be nice if there were an easy way to separate the tests
from the code being tested, and allow multiple versions (ie History) of
the tested code. Doing this would make it easier to test newer
versions of the tested code, and tie into the existing unit tests.
Ideally each version of the tested code would be run against the tests.
**

2. Could there be an RSS or mail feed to notify users of failures?

3. A bit more documentation on the mechanics of it all. For example :

a. what happens if my script throws an exception and its not caught?

b. does my script continue after a failed assertion?

i.e.

assertTrue(0);
log("message"); // will this get logged?

c. what environment does the html fragment 'sit' in? it looks like an
iframe, but it would be nice if it were possible to access the source
for it, and have that documented somewhere?

d. when is my script run? After the document has loaded? Or should my
script include attachEvent (or whatever) code if I want to rely on the
html being fully loaded?

4. It would be nice if the "Test Script" button actually ran the script
rather than just doing some sanity checking on it.

5. Could the launcher search for all functions called test???? and run
them? That would match JSUnit better I think. The following code does
that (someone correct me _when_ I'm wrong )

for (var name in window)
{
if (typeof(window[name]) == "function" && name.indexOf('test') ==
0)
{
window[name]();
}
}


Sorry if this seems overly critical, its not meant to be, as I think
its a fantastic idea

Sam


** I can see this is quite a big feature request! But I think its an
important one.

 

[sam.partington]

http://jtf.ploki.info

regarding test_stringToDate, and the comment :

"""
* Posted by acemtp the 2006-03-31 13:10:14 Rated 1 stars. Marked as not
working script
I disable the script for now because your log is too big (15kb). I
have to find a way to send bigger log and please find a way to send
less log
"""

I understand now what the submit page meant by the log is limited to
200 characters. I didn't realise that testing an assertion added to
the log.

I don't really see how I can send less log, except by removing the
tests There are only 64 assertions made, which I don't think is
unusual for testing boundary cases on a function like that, (To be
honest its not really enough, there are a whole slew of test cases that
should be added)

I guess the simplest thing would be to only log on a failure, at the
moment pass or fail the log is sent to the server. Which is I think
fairly normal for many unit testing frameworks. You don't really need
confirmation of every test that passed, just a count of how many tests
passed and which ones failed.

I think the 200 character limit will have to be solved at some point,
the other alternative is to use POST the data rather than use a GET
request.

Sam

 

[Roman Ziak]

That's what it's happen already. test cases are running in background
task using timers and iframes.

Ok then. I thought the particular script is being tested only when user
goes to check on its details.

I thought about that but I don't really think that anyone will add
background tests to his website.

Here is another idea:

Deploy a server side servise, where users will be able to stuff small
JS codes into the database. Then participating websites will be able to
add to their HTML:

<script
src="http://jtf.ploki.info/getScriptForTesting.php?uid=1236"></script>

When I setup an account on your farm, I would like to be able to upload
my scripts for testing and review results. The site moderator and
appointed users could review the submitted scripts before they would be
sent for their first test (untrusted script on trusted site issue).

I have a small site with some ~200 unique visitors a day and growing
and I would sign-up if project was executed properly and there was some
guarantee that those scripts will execute invisibly for my visitors.

Roman

 

[acemtp]

http://jtf.ploki.info

Wow, your comments are invaluable to me. I don't want to spam the NG so
I make only one post with all answers:

Sam, I added a FAQ and TODO page with all your questions!

1. It would be nice if there were an easy way to separate the tests

from the code being tested, and allow multiple versions.

I'll think about it.

5. Could the launcher search for all functions called test???? and run
them? That would match JSUnit better I think.

It's true, it's not really like JSUnit but I would like to keep the
system really simple, you put your html, your JS and voila, no need to
add function or what ever. If you split your test in more than one
function in JSUnit, on JTF you'll need to create 2 test cases to
separate them. a JTF test case is 1 function -> 1 set of test for this
function. it's one to one.

I think the 200 character limit will have to be solved at some point,
the other alternative is to use POST the data rather than use a GET
request.

It's a technical limit and I'll have to find a way to resolve it, I
cannot just change Get into Post It's a quite more complex.

When I setup an account on your farm, I would like to be able to upload
my scripts for testing and review results. The site moderator and
appointed users could review the submitted scripts before they would be
sent for their first test (untrusted script on trusted site issue).

I tried to use the same philosophy as wiki, no moderators, no accounts,
everybody can post a test case without registration process or
whatever. Everybody can disable a test case if he thinks it's
dangerous. I try to follow the KISS rule

<script src="http://jtf.ploki.info/getScriptForTesting.php?uid=1236"></script>

I thought about something like that but I was wondering if somebody
will really add it to it's website. If some people are really ready to
add that on there website, it could be really nice.

The bad thing with that is that it will not be collaborative anymore,
only your test cases will be tested or we have to select a sub-set of
trusted script... I'll think about it.

 

[electrician]

<Oh, somebody stop me! You want others to spend money to buy a PC and
software so they can use your products when you are too lousy to invest

a small amount of time and effort to make your products standards
compliant?

I guess you don't see the hypocrisy. >


There is no hypocrisy. I only have so much time to invest. Contrary
to what you say it takes a great deal of time to maintain "standards
compliant "pages, time that is a waste of time in my opinion. Who is
the standard bearer when 95 percent of the users comply with Microsoft?
W3C is out on the limb, I would say.

FrontPage and PowerPoint work very well for me. I have produced about
330 illustrations in 2 months for my code change course. On my best
day I did 23 illustrated pages. PowerPoint has an excellent graphics
package that allows me to maintain production at about triple the
output per time using a combination of software packages such as ultra
edit, adobe illustrator, paint shop pro and Netscape Composer. I have
done it both ways for about 10 years and believe me FrontPage and
PowerPoint are the way to go. FrontPage is excellent. The JavaScript
debugger works fine and you can switch back and forth between script,
design, preview, and a split screen with a click of a button.
FrontPage has the same drawing objects as PowerPoint and is very
similar.
I have been there and back building about 10,000 web pages over the
last ten years and in my humble opinion these software packages are
unequaled for production verses time. And that is the key element -
output verses time.

I don't really worry about the other browsers other than IE5+ because
like I said before, I sell a product and if a person can't afford
Windows XP and IE5.0+ then they probably are not going to buy the
products anyway. It takes a major amount of time to maintain
compatibility to the so called W3C standards, time which I do not have.
If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
garage. It is all about marketing.

 

[bgulian]

If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
garage. It is all about marketing.

Bill Gates never worked out of a garage. In fact, he built his company
on standards compliance. Now the other guys, Jobs and Wozniak, they
actualy did work out of a garage and established their own standard. I
think they have 5% of the worldwide personal computer market now,
probably less in the US. Although I admire what they did far more than
what Gates did, I have to admit that they "lost".

Now when you say 95% of users comply with the Microsoft standard, when
it comes to browsers, I doubt that is true. It is fair to say that 95%
of corporate/business users use IE 5+ but I'm sure that is not true of
home users. And of the client-side web applications that they use, I
would bet that less than 50% of them are only tested with IE.

Having said that, the company I work for only tests with IE and tells
their users upfront to turn back if they are using another browser.
It makes me very nervous to develop for them, especially in their
reliance on Active X. IE is free and Windows comes with the machine
you buy so I'm not sure what you mean by your "afford to buy my
products" argument. IE 7 moves so close to the W3c standard that you
ought to be more concerned about whether your pages conform. Unless
IE7 will be another "banned" browser in your ever shrinking world.

Bob Gulian

 

[Randy Webb]

(e-mail address removed) said the following on 4/1/2006 10:58 AM:

Bill Gates never worked out of a garage.

Directly, true. Paul Allen did most of the garage work.

In fact, he built his company on standards compliance.

Now that is plain ludicrous. Unless the "standards" you are referring to
are/were his own personal standards.

Now the other guys, Jobs and Wozniak, they actualy did work out of
a garage and established their own standard.

And so did Bill Gates.

I think they have 5% of the worldwide personal computer market now,
probably less in the US. Although I admire what they did far more than
what Gates did, I have to admit that they "lost".

If they lost, why does Gates own part of that "loser company"?

BTW, the basis for Windows was stolen from Steve Jobs by Bill Gates.

Now when you say 95% of users comply with the Microsoft standard, when
it comes to browsers, I doubt that is true. It is fair to say that 95%
of corporate/business users use IE 5+ but I'm sure that is not true of
home users. And of the client-side web applications that they use, I
would bet that less than 50% of them are only tested with IE.

It is even more true of home users. They buy a PC, it has Windows and IE
on it. Most web users don't even know that there are 2 browsers
available much less the 150 or so that are actually available for just
Windows.

Having said that, the company I work for only tests with IE and tells
their users upfront to turn back if they are using another browser.
It makes me very nervous to develop for them, especially in their
reliance on Active X.

Why? If a corporation wants to shoot themselves in the foot then let
them. Hell, load the gun for them.

IE is free and Windows comes with the machine you buy so I'm not sure
what you mean by your "afford to buy my products" argument.

And that is why 99% of Windows users use IE as the default browser. It's
free, it was there, they had no reason to go download another.

IE 7 moves so close to the W3c standard that you ought to be more
concerned about whether your pages conform.

<sarcasm>
Oh? My copy handles XHMTL so close to the W3C standards that I thought I
was using Mozilla for a moment

Unless IE7 will be another "banned" browser in your ever shrinking world.

If we could only be so lucky

 

[tihu]

Go to www.electrician.com to see the monster this experienced designer
(10000 pages) has created. You may be pleased to hear that website
almost the same in Firefox as it does in IE, unfortunately its
disgusting in both.

I recommend everyone visit his site to judge his skills in web design
and marketing.

I have never and will never judge a website on standards compliance. I
judge on content, usability, readability, marketing skill and visual
appeance (Not necessarily in this order)

What I assume is your site (www.electrician.com) is fails miserably on
all of these test, I humbly apologise for my rude message if this is
not your site. Before I trash the incompentent fool who designed this
site please let me point out a few flaws in your logic.

There is no hypocrisy. I only have so much time to invest. Contrary
to what you say it takes a great deal of time to maintain "standards
compliant "pages, time that is a waste of time in my opinion. Who is
the standard bearer when 95 percent of the users comply with Microsoft?
W3C is out on the limb, I would say.

In that case I look forward to your explaination why Microsoft is
boasting about their efforts to acheive W3C compliance and apologising
for not fully acheiving their aim, Microsoft do not share your opinions
about W3C and standards.

They do not and probably will never fully implement W3c standards, and
they don't need to - their market share makes it unneccessary , but
they have improved on their last attempt because it is in their
commercial and technical interest to do so.

These are quotes from a developer on the IE7 project

"We fully recognize that IE is behind the game today in CSS support",
"we know Beta 1 makes little progress for web developers in improving
our standards support, particularly in our CSS implementation. I feel
badly about this.."

"In IE7, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that web developers hit
as we can"

The IE developers at Microsoft disagree with you troll boy.

FrontPage and PowerPoint work very well for me. I have produced about
330 illustrations in 2 months for my code change course. On my best
day I did 23 illustrated pages.

If your site is anything to go by it was 23 pages of nasty looking
crap.

PowerPoint has an excellent graphics
package that allows me to maintain production at about triple the
output per time using a combination of software packages such as ultra
edit, adobe illustrator, paint shop pro and Netscape Composer. I have
done it both ways for about 10 years and believe me FrontPage and
PowerPoint are the way to go. FrontPage is excellent. The JavaScript
debugger works fine and you can switch back and forth between script,
design, preview, and a split screen with a click of a button.

Standard features for a web development/design suite!

My preferred choice is Dreamweaver and paint shop pro but that is only
my subjective personal opinion.

Your productivity has little to do with the program itself and has more
to do with the fact that once you know a program well, eg the shortcuts
and toolbars, you can work at a greater speed than if you try out a
different program with similar functionality

FrontPage has the same drawing objects as PowerPoint and is very
similar.

Again most web design/develoment suites provide these feature, both
Macromedia and Adobe have products which do this. But as you are
experienced with Microsoft products then of course it is best you stick
to what you know best.

I have been there and back building about 10,000 web pages over the
last ten years

10,000 crap web pages makes you a shit web designer

And in my humble opinion these software packages are
unequaled for production verses time. And that is the key element -
output verses time.

The products are maythe best for you but they are not the best for
everyone.

I am most productive with Dreamweaver, Paint Shop Pro and Crimson
Editor.

For me it is much much quicker and easier to use these.

If I had to use the software you promote my productivity would drop
dramatically at first then over time it would increase as I learned my
way round the programs. If you changed to the ones I use the same would
happen, the productivity-time factor is not inherent to the programs it
is you experience in using them that makes you fastest with them. Get
the point yet?? Are you so stupid that you could not work this out for
yourself?

I don't really worry about the other browsers other than IE5+ because
like I said before, I sell a product and if a person can't afford
Windows XP and IE5.0+ then they probably are not going to buy the
products anyway.

A 2.3Ghz Mac running safari costs more than most 2.3Ghz pc running
windows. They won't buy your product because your amatuerish web site
has the same effect as a smelly fart in a enclosed space.

It takes a major amount of time to maintain
compatibility to the so called W3C standards, time which I do not have.

Developing a standards compliant page doesnt take much more time or
money than developing an non standard compliant page.

However if you have a large poorly written website like your which is
in urgent need of redeveloping from scratch (like yours) that is a
different matter.

If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
garage. It is all about marketing.

But your site (www.electrician.com) does not display any knack for
marketing OR web design!!! And you are selling your domain name for
funds. What does that sauy about your marketing skill.

Your site fails every marketing test I know, the poorly written
content, a large course table which has a cell three words wide and 11
lines high. Did you intend to make your priice list unreadable??

This is not marketing!

The shocking layout and your habit of using links which contain 30+
words and covering three lines of the screen makes the content hard to
read and unattractive.

Don't worry though, your site is so ugly most people wont even bother
getting to the end of the page where you hid them.

And you put a link with your welcome message at the bottom of the
page!!! Where would you put your welcome doormat? In the attic?

I suggest you get a basic graphic/web design book and learn some of
basics of typography and layout before you claim to be a experienced
designer of 10,000 pages.

In summary your site looks so amatuerish it will deter most client who
can afford to buy your product so I am not surprised you are selling
the www.electrian.com domain name to raise funds.

 

[tihu]

Adhering to the W3C standards

has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
Products. W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.

Here's the link to the IE blog where the programmers of IE make
trollboy look like a clueless fool

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

Heres some quotes from "the lead program manager for the web platform
in IE"

The developers of IE disagree with your idiotic statements in details

"Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."

"When we shipped IE 6.0, we finally fully supported CSS 1"

"t times we have taken a leading role in standards support - and at
times we have not. When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows
back in 1996, we had the first CSS implementation out there in a
mass-market web browser. (I personally wrote the code for that
support."

"t times we have taken a leading role in standards support - and at
times we have not. When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows
back in 1996, we had the first CSS implementation out there in a
mass-market web browser. (I personally wrote the code for that
support."

Shut up Gerald, you're deluded and wrong

 

[Stephen Kellett]

BTW, the basis for Windows was stolen from Steve Jobs by Bill Gates.

Excuse me? You mean a windowing system, bitmap graphics, icons, mouse,
etc? - Apple from Xerox and Xerox on the back of work by Douglas
Englebart, founder of the foresight institute. I really do hate people
giving Apple (or anyone else) the credit for something they did not
invent.

Mr Englebart demonstrated bitmapped graphics and a mouse in 1967. There
is black and white video footage to prove it too. Time you start
Googling for the Bootstrap Institute.

You may dislike Mr Gates, but don't assume Mr Jobs didn't get his
inspiration from someone else. And in case you want to sight the iPod as
a stroke of genius, sorry, but that is just an evolution of the original
insight that gave rise to the Sony Walkman (the first portable music
player).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Engelbart
http://www.bootstrap.org/

Stephen

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Heres some quotes from "the lead program manager for the web platform
in IE"
YMMD.

The developers of IE disagree with your idiotic statements in details

The developers of IE say much. They also said XMLHttpRequest would be a
native object in IE 7.

"Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."

"When we shipped IE 6.0, we finally fully supported CSS 1"

But they do not. This can be easily proven by trying the W3C CSS 1 Test
Suite.


PointedEars

 

[tihu]

Read The Fucking Message you pointyeared freak

The developers of IE say much. They also said XMLHttpRequest would be a
native object in IE 7.

Looks like they kept their word this time klingonboy

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/01/23/516393.aspx

But they do not. This can be easily proven by trying the W3C CSS 1 Test
Suite.


PointedEars

we all know they dont, do you always miss the point like that?

if you read what i actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote you
will see i said about microsoft "boasting about their efforts" as well
as "They do not and probably will never fully implement W3c standards"

I included microsoft marketing shite because the electrician's
ridiculous claim was "Adhering to the W3C standards has kept these
browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft Products"

try harder thomas

 

[RobG]

Excuse me? You mean a windowing system, bitmap graphics, icons, mouse,
etc? - Apple from Xerox and Xerox on the back of work by Douglas
Englebart, founder of the foresight institute. I really do hate people
giving Apple (or anyone else) the credit for something they did not invent.

Hell, let's get way OT!

You're right, Jobs didn't invent the GUI, mouse or OO programming. He
freely admits that he got the idea from Xerox, they freely admit to giving
him the idea royalty free (much to the chagrin of Xerox researchers).

Gates saw the same stuff 'cos he was developing for Mac OS at the time -
Word and Excel became the packages they are off the back of the Mac GUI,
not Windows. Microsoft didn't have a windows-based GUI to develop or
deliver them on.

As for standards compliance, I think Macs have always been far more
standards compliant than PCs. The difference was that the PC world went
for cheap and nasty - ISA, EISA, MS-DOS, parallel, serial, etc. whereas
Macs used SCSI, NuBus, Postscript, etc. Standardisation in the PC world is
based on the original IBM clones - essentially a very basic architecture
stolen from IBM.

Remember when to add anything to a PC you had to add a card? Sound, colour,
heck even graphics usually needed another card stuck in somewhere. And
mice? Sheesh, how many PCs still use PS2 connectors for mice?

Mr Englebart demonstrated bitmapped graphics and a mouse in 1967. There
is black and white video footage to prove it too. Time you start
Googling for the Bootstrap Institute.

You may dislike Mr Gates, but don't assume Mr Jobs didn't get his
inspiration from someone else.

The genius of Mac OS is the GUI paradigm established by the original
programming team. The 'look and feel' they created still hasn't been
bettered and has been implemented in just about every GUI since.