Blackberry Javascript limitation

[Yong Huang]

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

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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.

There is no error console?

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.

Yes, it was discussed and referred to here only a few weeks ago.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The URL cited there is:
http://na.blackberry.com/eng/deliverables/8861/Overview_790346_11.jsp

You might also find this useful:
http://na.blackberry.com/eng/deliverables/8857/Feature_JavaScript_512506_11.jsp

(Added to make it easier to answer this question by searching the group
archive.)

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

 

[Yong Huang]

The URL cited there is:http://na.blackberry.com/eng/deliverables/8861/Overview_790346_11.jsp

You might also find this useful:http://na.blackberry.com/eng/deliverables/8857/Feature_JavaScript_512...

(Added to make it easier to answer this question by searching the group
archive.)

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

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Yong Huang wrote:
Is there any web site that lists Blackberry browser's limitation for
Javascript? Thanks for any help.
Yes, it was discussed and referred to here only a few weeks ago.

The URL cited there is:http://na.blackberry.com/eng/deliverables/8861/Overview_790346_11.jsp

You might also find this useful:http://na.blackberry.com/eng/deliverables/8857/Feature_JavaScript_512...
[...]

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.

Of course. BlackBerry does not support JavaScriptâ„¢, it supports its own
ECMAScript implementation.

The language attribute is pretty archaic.

It is _deprecated_ because it is not interoperable.

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.

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

 

[Jorge]

If you agree with Thomas, please say so here and now.

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.

 

[David Mark]

Was: Re: Blackberry Javascript limitation







I chose to help the original poster by supplying him with the
information he requested.

I did this to so that the thread with subject "Blackberry Javascript
limitation" contained a URL that answered the implicit question.

Thomas thinks that I was wrong to do this, for the reasons he gives above..

If you agree with Thomas, please say so here and now.

*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.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

I chose to help the original poster by supplying him with the information
he requested.

I did this to so that the thread with subject "Blackberry Javascript
limitation" contained a URL that answered the implicit question.

Thomas thinks that I was wrong to do this, for the reasons he gives
above.

If you agree with Thomas, please say so here and now.

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

 

[Matthias Reuter]

I chose to help the original poster by supplying him with the
information he requested.

I did this to so that the thread with subject "Blackberry Javascript
limitation" contained a URL that answered the implicit question.

Thomas thinks that I was wrong to do this, for the reasons he gives
above.

If you agree with Thomas, please say so here and now.

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

 

[RobG]

Was: Re: Blackberry Javascript limitation

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Yong Huang wrote:
Is there any web site that lists Blackberry browser's limitation for
Javascript? Thanks for any help.
Yes, it was discussed and referred to here only a few weeks ago.
The URL cited there is:
http://na.blackberry.com/eng/deliverables/8861/Overview_790346_11.jsp

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

[...]
I chose to help the original poster by supplying him with the
information he requested.

Then you should have replied to the OP.

I did this to so that the thread with subject "Blackberry Javascript
limitation" contained a URL that answered the implicit question.

Thomas thinks that I was wrong to do this, for the reasons he gives above..

If you agree with Thomas, please say so here and now.

Off topic.

 

[Matt Sach]

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

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.

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

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,

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.

and you would have given an example of a
quoting style that is not welcome here (by over-quoting). Congratulations.

At least it wasn't top-posted. Nothing I would notice or care about.

/L

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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.

You miss the point. (Free) time wasted with reading (and maybe replying to)
stupid questions is not available to spend for smart questions.

Not everybody subscribes to the idea that you shouldn't help people except
to make them help themselves.

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]

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.

*de*creases, of course.

(It's really too hot around here. So much for SNR ;-))