Blackberry Javascript limitation

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Yong Huang, Jul 27, 2009.

  1. Yong Huang

    Yong Huang Guest

    I have some Javascript on this page:
    http://yong321.freeshell.org/misc/CardGame24.html

    When I use my Blackberry to access it, only the Deal button works as
    expected. When pressing the Show Answer button in the page, nothing
    happens. I can't figure out which Javascript function or feature I
    used that the Blackberry browser does not render.

    My Blackberry browser has everything supported (except Use Background
    Images and Support Embedded Media). It can login YahooMail which
    requires Javascript.

    Is there any web site that lists Blackberry browser's limitation for
    Javascript? Thanks for any help.

    Yong Huang
     
    Yong Huang, Jul 27, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. There is no error console?
    Yes, it was discussed and referred to here only a few weeks ago.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 27, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. A search for "BlackBerry" would have sufficed. Your posting does not
    increase the probability that this search would be successful at all.

    What you have merely accomplished by posting the link directly is supporting
    the false impression that lazy people like the OP would be allowed to waste
    the time of this group's regulars, and you would have given an example of a
    quoting style that is not welcome here (by over-quoting). Congratulations.

    <http://jibbering.com/faq/#posting>


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 27, 2009
    #3
  4. Yong Huang

    Yong Huang Guest

    Thank you, Jonathan. I remember seeing that page while I was
    researching it. But it didn't occur to me I needed a newer version of
    Blackberry browser. I focused on my code thinking I probably used
    something non-standard that caused the browser to not work.

    Now I realize it's an issue of BlackBerry Device Software version vs
    Javascript version. So I tried changing
    <script language = "JavaScript">
    to
    <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript1.2">

    thinking I can force a lower Javascript version. But the problem
    persists. The language attribute is pretty archaic. Of all comments on
    this, I think gil davis's message at
    http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-28479.html
    makes good sense.

    It's not a big deal. I'm just curious about it. Thanks for your
    kindness.

    Yong Huang
     
    Yong Huang, Jul 27, 2009
    #4
  5. Of course. BlackBerry does not support JavaScriptâ„¢, it supports its own
    ECMAScript implementation.
    It is _deprecated_ because it is not interoperable.
    Unsurprisingly that does not make sense at all. Ignore this person,
    for he does not really know what they they are doing. In addition,
    JavaScript/ECMAScript media types have been registered (2005 CE)
    since that was posted (2004):

    <http://PointedEars.de/scripts/test/mime-types>

    Learn to quote.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 27, 2009
    #5
  6. Yong Huang

    Jorge Guest

    Of course I DON'T agree.

    These people behave as if they owned c.l.js.

    Take it easy and don't pay them any more attention than they deserve.
     
    Jorge, Jul 28, 2009
    #6
  7. Yong Huang

    David Mark Guest

    *PLONK* Always wanted to do that.

    It's not so much a vote of confidence for Thomas but an expression of
    my contempt for your stabs at leadership. Keep it up and I will ban
    you from the group.
     
    David Mark, Jul 28, 2009
    #7
  8. I think that if you take the time to read and respond to a reasonable and
    polite post, you might as well supply the requested information as you did.

    If one has a problem with the posting style, it is surely more effective to
    simply mention it rather than taking a hostile attitude and wasting even
    more time by igniting flame wars and creating an atmosphere of
    hypercriticality and confrontation.

    Life is too short and precious to maintain such an attitude of seriousness
    with no sense of humor and tolerance for deviation from an individually
    perceived standard. It seems ridiculous that you and the OP should be so
    sharply criticized.

    Paul
     
    Paul E. Schoen, Jul 28, 2009
    #8
  9. Maybe we need a group comp.lang.javascript.userfriendly where only those
    may answer who do so in a polite manner and only with regard to the
    original post.

    Matt
     
    Matthias Reuter, Jul 29, 2009
    #9
  10. Yong Huang

    RobG Guest

    Then you should have replied to the OP.

    Off topic.
     
    RobG, Jul 29, 2009
    #10
  11. Yong Huang

    Matt Sach Guest

    Informative, that. As an extra update, IE6 and IE7 both don't handle
    "application/.*script". I don't have IE8 to hand (due to laziness and
    failure setting up VMs for multiple IE version testing).

    My assumption therefore is that, despite the "text" form being
    obsolete, it's not possible to switch to general use of the
    "application" form of the type attribute if IE support is required?

    OT: I can totally understand PointedEars' attempt to train people out
    of lazy NG habits, and also Jonathan's propensity towards being more
    directly helpful in-thread, but the sniping at *each other* about it
    when neither of you have the ultimate authority to control how other
    people post is a tad boring.
     
    Matt Sach, Jul 29, 2009
    #11
  12. They are. It's an unmoderated group ;)

    And being a regular reader and/or writer of the group does not impart any
    privileges (there are quite a few regular writers that I would rather do
    without), including, but not limited to, not having their time wasted.

    Not everybody subscribes to the idea that you shouldn't help people except
    to make them help themselves.
    At least it wasn't top-posted. Nothing I would notice or care about.

    /L
     
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Jul 29, 2009
    #12
  13. You miss the point. (Free) time wasted with reading (and maybe replying to)
    stupid questions is not available to spend for smart questions.

    Yes, unfortunately, more and more people tend to think of Usenet as a free
    help desk. As a result, SNR increases. Certainly not something to look
    forward to.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 29, 2009
    #13
  14. *de*creases, of course.

    (It's really too hot around here. So much for SNR ;-))
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jul 29, 2009
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.