Internet Explorer JavaScript Weirdness

[Prisoner at War]

Hi, All:

I have a JavaScript search engine that always causes MSIE 7 to do a
top-of-page security "warning" (that top-of-page-bar, and not an
"alert" [dialog box])...but other websites' JavaScripts do not trigger
that...what's going on? When I visit other JavaScript sites there's
no warning and the scripts work fine, but mine (it's still under
construction, offline) occasions that warning and I have to manually
allow MSIE to run JavaScript every new session of MSIE....

Also (nothing to do with JavaScript, but I might as well ask, in case
it helps any), I have an animated .jpg that refuses to load in MSIE 7
though Opera 9 and Firefox 2 display that perfectly.


TIA!!

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I have a JavaScript search engine that always causes MSIE 7 to do a
top-of-page security "warning" (that top-of-page-bar, and not an
"alert" [dialog box])...but other websites' JavaScripts do not trigger
that...what's going on? When I visit other JavaScript sites there's
no warning and the scripts work fine, but mine (it's still under
construction, offline) occasions that warning and I have to manually
allow MSIE to run JavaScript every new session of MSIE....

The "JavaScript" search engine (MSIE 7, like all MSHTML-based UAs, provides
JScript instead) uses an ActiveX/COM object that is deemed insecure by MSIE
7. The other sites that you have checked either do not or they are defined
to be in another Security Zone where less restrictions apply.

This is no guessing game at all. Post some code or the URL of your search
engine.

http://jibbering.com/faq/

Also (nothing to do with JavaScript, but I might as well ask, in case
it helps any), I have an animated .jpg that refuses to load in MSIE 7
though Opera 9 and Firefox 2 display that perfectly.

There are no "animated .jpg", unless the resource name suffix is not
indicative of the file format in your case (bad idea with MSIE). JPEG is
not an image format that allows animation (short of progressive rendering),
you have to use GIF89a or MNG for that (alas, the latter only with limited
support).


PointedEars

 

[Prisoner at War]

The "JavaScript" search engine (MSIE 7, like all MSHTML-based UAs, provides
JScript instead) uses an ActiveX/COM object that is deemed insecure by MSIE
7.  The other sites that you have checked either do not or they are defined
to be in another Security Zone where less restrictions apply.

Well, there's a cookie involved...but that's never been an issue
before! 'Matter of fact, until I manually turned it off, I was
getting cookies automatically, while getting that warning from MSIE.

This is no guessing game at all.  Post some code or the URL of your search
engine.

It's the script over at <http://javascriptkit.com/script/script2/jse/
index.shtml>...I've only modified it very slightly and don't think
it's anything I've done...it's rather too long to just post, even if
only just over fifty lines or so....

http://jibbering.com/faq/

Thanks for the ref...though I didn't notice anything specifically
relating to MSIE weirdness....

There are no "animated .jpg", unless the resource name suffix is not
indicative of the file format in your case (bad idea with MSIE).

Sorry, what do you mean "bad idea with MSIE"?? And how could the file
extension given by the OS itself be misleading??

 JPEG is
not an image format that allows animation (short of progressive rendering),
you have to use GIF89a or MNG for that (alas, the latter only with limited
support).

But WinXP says "JPEG" for sure!

?!?!

 

[Prisoner at War]

Just for the record...my second problem's now solved!

Turns out that MSIE 7 won't load animation that's been saved as a .jpg
file, but it will load it when that animation is properly labeled
the .gif that it is!!

?!?!

Opera 9 and Firefox 2 had no problems....

 

[Evertjan.]

Prisoner at War wrote on 12 apr 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

Just for the record...my second problem's now solved!

Turns out that MSIE 7 won't load animation that's been saved as a .jpg
file, but it will load it when that animation is properly labeled
the .gif that it is!!

[Please do not toppost on usenet]

Could be weird, but it is not a javascript issue.

But thank you for pointing this out to me. ;-)

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Well, there's a cookie involved...but that's never been an issue
before! 'Matter of fact, until I manually turned it off, I was
getting cookies automatically, while getting that warning from MSIE.

Pardon? I have written "ActiveX/COM object", _not_ "cookie", because the
former is the most common cause for such a warning message. However, the
code you are using does not use ActiveX/COM, so you should state what the
message actually says.

Thanks for the ref...though I didn't notice anything specifically
relating to MSIE weirdness....

It was the purpose of this reference that you get yourself informed about
proper behavior in Usenet in general, and comp.lang.javascript in
particular. Especially

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html

as referred to there.

Sorry, what do you mean "bad idea with MSIE"?? And how could the file
extension given by the OS itself be misleading??

Well, you have found that out for yourself in the meantime.

But WinXP says "JPEG" for sure!

Windows Explorer does not use MIME-magic, it relies solely on the filename
suffix. And so does Internet Explorer.


PointedEars

 

[Prisoner at War]

Pardon? I have written "ActiveX/COM object", _not_ "cookie", because the
former is the most common cause for such a warning message. However, the
code you are using does not use ActiveX/COM, so you should state what the
message actually says.

It's that "to help protect your security, Internet Explorer has
restricted this webpage from running scripts or ActiveX controls that
could access your computer..." warning along the top of the screen,
just underneath the MSIE tabs. Once I click on it and choose "Allow
Blocked Content" everything works fine.

But, like I'd said, I was getting cookies automatically from all
websites before without that warning! But opening my webpage (which
is offline; I'm still working on it) with the search engine occasions
that warning for some strange reason -- and now, even stranger, the
simple image swap below also gets that warning!!

<img src="something.jpg" id="test" name="test"
onMouseOver="this.src='nothing.jpg;"
onMouseOut="this.src='something.jpg';" />

It was the purpose of this reference that you get yourself informed about
proper behavior in Usenet in general, and comp.lang.javascript in
particular. Especially

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html

as referred to there.

Ah, okay, thanks...though, you know, I don't like it that even usenet
posting has "scripting rules!" 9_9

Well, you have found that out for yourself in the meantime.

So strange!! What's the point of a file extension, then, if it can be
renamed whatever...well, it still behaves as it should, whatever its
name!

Windows Explorer does not use MIME-magic, it relies solely on the filename
suffix. And so does Internet Explorer.

Okay, thanks again! This is what I hate about computers...the
stupidest things have to be so precise, but then other things can be
just whatever! =\

 

[Prisoner at War]

[Please do not toppost on usenet]

What -- even of myself?!?! ;-)

Seriously...what's with the top-posting issue?? How come no one tells
bloggers to not top-post? (Yes I know usenet isn't a blog -- or,
rather, it's a gigantic public blog -- but I really don't understand
the logic of this top-posting no-no.)

Could be weird, but it is not a javascript issue.

And thank Goodness for that! Enough JavaScript issues as it is
-- ! ;-)

But thank you for pointing this out to me. ;-)

Glad you found it of interest! This stuff is very strange...it's like
trying to talk to President Bush...the damned thing just does what it
wants to do! Why "return false" in one case and "return true" in
another?? Strange stuff here and there....

 

[Evertjan.]

Prisoner at War wrote on 12 apr 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

[Please do not toppost on usenet]

What -- even of myself?!?! ;-)

Seriously...what's with the top-posting issue?? How come no one tells
bloggers to not top-post? (Yes I know usenet isn't a blog -- or,
rather, it's a gigantic public blog -- but I really don't understand
the logic of this top-posting no-no.)

Answer:It destroys the order of the conversation
Question: Why?
Answer: Top-Posting.
Question: Whats the most annoying thing on Usenet?

And thank Goodness for that! Enough JavaScript issues as it is
-- ! ;-)

Glad you found it of interest! This stuff is very strange...it's like
trying to talk to President Bush...the damned thing just does what it
wants to do! Why "return false" in one case and "return true" in
another?? Strange stuff here and there....

[please do not quote signatures on usenet]

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

It's that "to help protect your security, Internet Explorer has
restricted this webpage from running scripts or ActiveX controls that
could access your computer..." warning along the top of the screen,
just underneath the MSIE tabs. Once I click on it and choose "Allow
Blocked Content" everything works fine.

But, like I'd said, I was getting cookies automatically from all
websites before without that warning! But opening my webpage (which
is offline; I'm still working on it) with the search engine occasions
that warning for some strange reason -- and now, even stranger, the
simple image swap below also gets that warning!!

<img src="something.jpg" id="test" name="test"
onMouseOver="this.src='nothing.jpg;"
onMouseOut="this.src='something.jpg';" />

(Confirmed for hoverMe accessed via `file:' URI. OMG.)

Internet Explorer 7 imposes several security restrictions on code loaded
from `file:' URIs. I presume this is to protect users from malware that
would not be able to get access to the OS if the OS was properly designed in
the first place.

You should test your "offline" Web sites on a local Web server so that you
can access them with `http:' URIs as you did after they went "online".
Apache is stable, does not eat much memory, is easy to install, open source,
free software, and it is for free:

http://httpd.apache.org/

So strange!! What's the point of a file extension, then, if it can be
renamed whatever...well, it still behaves as it should, whatever its
name!


Okay, thanks again! This is what I hate about computers...the
stupidest things have to be so precise, but then other things can be
just whatever! =\

That only depends on who writes the OS and the UI, and finally the Web user
agent. For example, GNU/Linux applications show that filename extensions do
not need to matter; Firefox shows that resource names do not need to matter,
even on Windows.


HTH

PointedEars

 

[Michael Wojcik]

[Please do not toppost on usenet]

What -- even of myself?!?! ;-)

Posting is posting. Whom you're quoting (if anyone) is moot.

Seriously...what's with the top-posting issue??

Top-posting presents information out-of-order. With Usenet, there's no
guarantee that everyone's seen previous messages, so they may need to
read relevant earlier information to set your priceless contribution
in context. Interleaved posting has been a Usenet convention for more
than a quarter of a century.

How come no one tells bloggers to not top-post?

1. Bloggers are usually posting in a forum they own. Their forum,
their rules.

2. Blog postings usually don't quote extensively. (And the ones I've
seen use in-context, interleaved quoting when they do.)

3. Teaching a blogger netiquette is surely an even less rewarding task
than teaching it to a Usenet poster.

(Yes I know usenet isn't a blog -- or,
rather, it's a gigantic public blog

Or, rather, it's not a blog in any way, shape, or form.

Usenet isn't a web application, so there goes the "b" prefix. There
are web-to-Usenet gateways (most notably the benighted Google), but
they're parasitic and wholly unnecessary to Usenet. These days, Usenet
is mostly carried over NNTP, and back in the Good Old Days before spam
and AOL and Eternal September it was mostly carried over UUCP
point-to-point links. (And the s/n ratio was orders of magnitude
higher, and when someone got Usenet access for the first time they
were subscribed to news.newusers and given a copy of _Zen and the Art
of the Internet_ or some other guide.)

Nor is Usenet a log, so the suffix doesn't apply either. Usenet is a
convention for formatting and organizing messages, and a collection of
messages thus formatted and organized and propagated through various
transports to Usenet nodes. It's not a single forum, it doesn't live
on a central server or coordinate messages through a gatekeeper, and
it's administered by convention. It's about as unlike a log as a
collection of messages could be.

-- but I really don't understand
the logic of this top-posting no-no.)

It's explained in the group's FAQ. Checking the FAQ before asking
questions is good netiquette. But as you can see, we have a circular
dependency here.

Of course, the Usenet convention for interleaved quotation is
explained in about a million other places as well.

But in any case, you don't need to understand the reason for it.
Usenet has been around for about three decades now. It has prevailing
conventions, and each Usenet group has prevailing conventions as well.
It's not unreasonable to ask that new posters observe the group,
learn the conventions, and follow them.

 

[Jorge]

<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-March/
040735.html>

Besides, most email clients invite you to top-post by default.

--Jorge.

[Please do not toppost on usenet]

What -- even of myself?!?!  ;-)

Posting is posting. Whom you're quoting (if anyone) is moot.

Seriously...what's with the top-posting issue??

Top-posting presents information out-of-order. With Usenet, there's no
guarantee that everyone's seen previous messages, so they may need to
read relevant earlier information to set your priceless contribution
in context. Interleaved posting has been a Usenet convention for more
than a quarter of a century.
(..)

 

[Evertjan.]

Jorge wrote on 17 apr 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

Besides, most email clients invite you to top-post by default.

An email client is not primarily intended for usenet,
and email is not a usenet posting,
and it does not even mean that it would be the beteer way for email,
and I my emailclient Pegasus does not invite you so,
and I doubt your 'most' is true.

You would not use a bicicle as the golden standard for motorway use,
or drink your wisky with a fork.

Usenet newsreaders are optimalized for usenet.

Answer: Ad nauseam!
Answer: It destroys the order of the conversation
Question: Why?
Answer: Top-Posting.
Question: Whats the most annoying thing on Usenet?

... and the faq shows that this NG adheres to this normal usenet procedure.

<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3>

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-March/
040735.html>

Besides, most email clients invite you to top-post by default.

You are mistaken. It is a Good Thing of them to place the cursor on top of
the quote because you should add the salutation there, and read the quote
from top to bottom while trimming the parts that you are not replying to and
placing your reply just below the (summarized) parts that you are replying to.

Users frequently misunderstand this feature as an invitation to write
everything they are about to write on top of the full quote, with the
recipient of the message having to go into Batman Mode[tm] in order to
understand it.

Besides, NetNews is not e-mail.


F'up2 poster because I don't know where this would be on-topic in the Big 8.
Feel free to make a change (as long it does not continue only here).

PointedEars

 

[Michael Wojcik]

<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-March/
040735.html>

Why do you believe this is persuasive? McManis offers no substantial
arguments to support his position; neither is he any sort of authority
on the subject.

Besides, most email clients invite you to top-post by default.

Usenet is not email.

The default behavior of poorly-written software does not constitute a
persuasive argument.

That's zero for two. Care to try again?

 

[Prisoner at War]

(Confirmed for hoverMe accessed via `file:' URI. OMG.)
?

Internet Explorer 7 imposes several security restrictions on code loaded
from `file:' URIs. I presume this is to protect users from malware that
would not be able to get access to the OS if the OS was properly designed in
the first place.
LOL

You should test your "offline" Web sites on a local Web server so that you
can access them with `http:' URIs as you did after they went "online".
Apache is stable, does not eat much memory, is easy to install, open source,
free software, and it is for free:

http://httpd.apache.org/

Thanks for the ref, but you see how I'm struggling with simple
JavaScript basics here, too! =(

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename_extension> for details.
Especially the "Historical limitations" section should prove to be enlightening.

Wow, thanks...this was really amusing: "[the] use of spaces often led
to confusion with novice DOS users, who thought of the "." as part of
the file's identifier, rather than merely a convention for separating
the two components of that identifier"...reminds me of the joke about
customers calling tech support about the "'any' key"....

 

[Prisoner at War]

Answer:It destroys the order of the conversation
Question: Why?
Answer: Top-Posting.
Question: Whats the most annoying thing on Usenet?

<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3>

I've seen that before; what I meant was, so what? What's the big
deal? Presumably, people having the conversation would have no
problem following it, and interested third-parties can always look at
the quote...besides, sometimes it just looks more visually pleasing to
have a "bottom-heavy" post when the reply is to be only a few lines in
comparison.

<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_2>

I really appreciate your help, but I have a philosophical disagreement
with the notion that a public forum requires its own "law library" and
"legal procedures"....

[please do not quote signatures on usenet]

Huh?? What's that about now?? If someone has a signature, why would
it be bad form for that signature to be included in a quote of his or
her post???

 

[Prisoner at War]

Posting is posting. Whom you're quoting (if anyone) is moot.



Top-posting presents information out-of-order.

Yeah, but so do blogs and e-mail.

With Usenet, there's no
guarantee that everyone's seen previous messages, so they may need to
read relevant earlier information to set your priceless contribution
in context. Interleaved posting has been a Usenet convention for more
than a quarter of a century.


1. Bloggers are usually posting in a forum they own. Their forum,
their rules.

2. Blog postings usually don't quote extensively. (And the ones I've
seen use in-context, interleaved quoting when they do.)

3. Teaching a blogger netiquette is surely an even less rewarding task
than teaching it to a Usenet poster.

LOL! And I'd thought usenet was the pits! =)

Or, rather, it's not a blog in any way, shape, or form.

I see "blog," "usenet," "texting," and "world wide web" as instances
of "informal conversation"...I just don't see the point of MLA/Boswell-
style rules of publication/debate in this medium...I can't believe I'm
the only one who thinks this way....

Usenet isn't a web application, so there goes the "b" prefix. There
are web-to-Usenet gateways (most notably the benighted Google), but
they're parasitic and wholly unnecessary to Usenet. These days, Usenet
is mostly carried over NNTP, and back in the Good Old Days before spam
and AOL and Eternal September it was mostly carried over UUCP
point-to-point links. (And the s/n ratio was orders of magnitude
higher, and when someone got Usenet access for the first time they
were subscribed to news.newusers and given a copy of _Zen and the Art
of the Internet_ or some other guide.)

Well, usenet was started up by academics, I guess, so no surprise that
it was so insistent on MLA rules of publication and all that
jazz...but come on, this isn't a scientific journal we're creating;
it's just passing notes....

Nor is Usenet a log, so the suffix doesn't apply either. Usenet is a
convention for formatting and organizing messages, and a collection of
messages thus formatted and organized and propagated through various
transports to Usenet nodes. It's not a single forum, it doesn't live
on a central server or coordinate messages through a gatekeeper, and
it's administered by convention. It's about as unlike a log as a
collection of messages could be.

And any analogy will tear if stretched far enough, because analogies
are meant to compare similar qualities of different things -- and not
meant to say that one thing is "identical" (in the mathematical sense)
with another thing.

It's explained in the group's FAQ. Checking the FAQ before asking
questions is good netiquette. But as you can see, we have a circular
dependency here.

Of course, the Usenet convention for interleaved quotation is
explained in about a million other places as well.

But in any case, you don't need to understand the reason for it.
Usenet has been around for about three decades now. It has prevailing
conventions, and each Usenet group has prevailing conventions as well.
It's not unreasonable to ask that new posters observe the group,
learn the conventions, and follow them.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I cannot follow rules I don't
believe in (I'm just that kind of person). It seems more visually
pleasing to place the one or two paragraphs of a response on top of
the post quoted than to bury it underneath that post if the post is
rather much longer.

To me, it's not like you or someone else suddenly can't parse my words
or your computer shuts down or something if I had top-posted. I
really don't see the "harm" of top-posting, whereas I see benefits at
times. To me, it's like the toilet paper roll "controversy" -- under
or over, it's the same! =)

 

[Prisoner at War]

<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-March/
040735.html>

Besides, most email clients invite you to top-post by default.

--Jorge.

Just seems natural, doesn't it? I mean, you presume someone is
following the conversation, so no need to open up with a re-hash of
the previous week's episode, so to speak! And for those who are just
tuning in...there's always the Collectors' Edition DVD! ;-)

 

[Prisoner at War]

An email client is not primarily intended for usenet,
and email is not a usenet posting,
and it does not even mean that it would be the beteer way for email,
and I my emailclient Pegasus does not invite you so,
and I doubt your 'most' is true.

You can pick apart any comparison with the fury of a JavaScript
interpreter, but if you know what is meant and everyone else knows,
where's the harm? Remember, we're not publishing a book here.

You would not use a bicicle as the golden standard for motorway use,

Actually, I say we should -- it's disgusting how everything has been
designed around cars! Hello, *people* live here!

or drink your wisky with a fork.

Well, one really shouldn't drink alcohol anyway, except maybe as a
part of some cold medicine....

Usenet newsreaders are optimalized for usenet.

Answer: Ad nauseam!
Answer: It destroys the order of the conversation
Question: Why?
Answer: Top-Posting.
Question: Whats the most annoying thing on Usenet?

And how hard was it to look down to the bottom to see what the
original statement was? I mean, goodness, let's not start thinking
like little computers! The whole point of being human is being able
to make one's own "rules" and live and do as one pleases...top-posting
is harmless, and annoying only if one wishes to be a "Moslem" about it
and insist on being ticked off at something that is simply a
convenience for others....

.. and the faq shows that this NG adheres to this normal usenet procedure.

<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3>

Well, I can't say it's a good thing that all this technology only
makes for more rules and regulations....