JS Enabled But No RegExp Support?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Concerning of the original question from the *practical* point of view:

Talking practice without understanding the basics. You made my day again.

Regular expressions are supported on all desktop browsers being in use
for the last six years and up to currently.

As I said in the other followup, that is not true.

Individuals still using Netscape 2.x-3.x or IE 2.x-3.x are subject of
the medical attention which neither you nor any other developer can
provide using JavaScript.

Telnet-style browsers (Lynx and others) can be detected on the
server-side

_No_ user agent can be reliably detected by its User-Agent header.

and have a mirror site provided *if it is really needed/required*.

Utter nonsense.

Nothing can be done by using JavaScript.

Nonsense. ELinks supports JavaScript and it is possible
to test for many features, including RegExp support.

RexExp module

There is no RegExp module.

still have some different bugs/missing implementations
from one browser to another

Name one, without using your fantasy.

(Opera is specially bad on it because
RegExp interfers with their Voice module

There is no scripting "Voice module" that interferes with a "RegExp
module" because neither exist! You have no clue of what you are
talking about. No surprise here, though.

[rest of nonsensical babbling snipped]

_You_ require "medical attention" much more than the "Individuals
still using Netscape 2.x-3.x or IE 2.x-3.x" you are talking about.


PointedEars

 

[Randy Webb]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/4/2005 3:48 PM:

Randy Webb wrote:

Patient Guy said the following on 12/4/2005 9:39 AM:


Stop arguing with him Patient, he has no grasp of Reality

What you call "Reality" here is merely an assumption based on a handful
of examples, and the irresponsible, illogical, and potentially harmful
wishful thinking that those examples are an indication of all cases.
(Obviously you are not a [computer] scientist.)

Wrong on both accounts PointedHead.

<snip useless babble>

 

[Randy Webb]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/4/2005 3:27 PM:

Randy Webb wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/4/2005 2:12 PM:

Matt Kruse wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[ECMAScript]
10.1.5 Global Object
? Additional host defined properties. This may include
a property whose value is the global object
itself; for example, in the HTML document object
model the window property of the global object is
the global object itself.

That is a "may", not a MUST.

A host may define a global object. In the HTML DOM, it's the window
object. Seems pretty clear.

Yes, that only _seems_ so.

And until proven otherwise, it will continue to be so.

Exactly. It will continue to seem to be so.

If you are going to quote me PointedHead, quote what I said. "And until
proven otherwise, it will continue to _be_ so". Now, either prove it
otherwise or accept Reality and move on to Troll elsewhere. You are
beginning to become boring.

Don't be ridiculous. It is definitely not. Examples are never normative
by themself in specifications, the ECMAScript Specification makes no
exception. If it made, it would not deserve to be called a specification
anymore.

Who said anything about ECMA? Not me PointedHead.
Learn to read, and understand, what I wrote before you reply.

YMMD.

And your lack of common sense will never cease to amaze me.

Regarding the HTML DOM, the only _normative_ text would be found
declared as such in the W3C DOM Level 2 HTML Specification. _They_ and
it set the _standard_ for the HTML DOM (which does _not_ mean that there
are no proprietary DOMs [allowed]).

Anybody can set a standard. It is up to the UA vendors to decide whether
they follow that standard or not. You have, continuously, failed to
realize that. And when subjected to an example of where it doesn't
follow the standard, you reply back with your patented "They extended
the standard" or "It is broken" non-coherent babble.

But, as I said, windows can contain documents, they are no part of them,
hence cannot be part of a _properly_ called DOM, only of another object model.

I never said different PointedHead. Again, read what I write and learn
to understand it before replying.

Since the next greater entity would be the application, it is reasonable to
call that the Application Object Model as mozilla.org does (the current Wiki
is based on a flawed reference, there are other references that make the
distinction).

Wiki's are only as good a reference as the person who wrote the entry. I
thought you might do better than that for coming up with a reference but
alas I was wrong.

I wonder if you have any idea what "normative" means regarding a
specification or understood what was written. I seriously doubt it.

Wrong again PointedHead. I am well aware of what the word "normative"
means. You should look it up and learn it yourself before telling me how
to understand my native language when it is not your native language.
Now, go Troll elsewhere.

<snipped useless unrelated babble>

Stick to the Theory PointedHead. You suck lemons and gonads when it
comes to Reality.

Now, please go Troll elsewhere.

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

When you name an actual implementation of the global object that is not
browser window-based, then your statement will be more than just what it is
now: pedantic.

Took some time finding it, but I knew I had heard it before.
The counter example was the Corel SVG plugin, which is scriptable in
Javascript and where the global object is not the window object.

The SVG specification actually defines a window object, but doesn't
mandate that it is also the global object.

It's also worth noticing that for cross window scripting, the window
object you are referring need not be the global object for the script
that is running (although it is for scripts running in the context
of the other window)

/L

 

[Matt Kruse]

Took some time finding it, but I knew I had heard it before.
The counter example was the Corel SVG plugin, which is scriptable in
Javascript and where the global object is not the window object.

That's a plugin, not a browser.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

That's a plugin, not a browser.

Care to read
| When you name an actual implementation of the global object that
| is not browser window-based [...]

It was named. I also could have named it, but I just referred to
previous threads where it was named.


PointedEars