AJAX problem

[Bruce A. Julseth]

Hence part of why so few books are recommended here.

Those comments were used to hide Javascript from browsers like Netscape
version 2 (and possibly 3). They are obsolete. Entirely.



Set up your page to show 31 days. This works for folks who do not have
Javascript enabled. There are date functions available, within
Javascript, so that you can update the days dropdown without having to
resort to anything more fancy.

Okay.. That sound great. I'll just have to locate these JavaScript date
functions. Didn't know there functions that would modify the Options list.
Thanks...

 

[Bruce A. Julseth]

Bruce A. Julseth meinte:

Thomas explained it already. You're gonna need 3 *different* XHR objects
and not re-initialize the same one all the time.

Gregor

Thanks. I give that a try...

Bruce

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted:

Please don't post attribution novels.

Ignore that; Lahn is a control freak with peculiar ideas. [...]

Let's see: Someone makes a polite request along with a rather long and
helpful message. Someone else calls the former person a control freak.
Now, the quiz question: Who's the real control freak here?


PointedEars

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>,
Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:59:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Nonsense. HTML 2.0 (as of 1995-11) has been officially declared OBSOLETE
about eight years, six months ago:



That's but a lame excuse for still using and supporting software FUBAR. If
that piece of software was really that useful to everyone, one would think
their authors would have taken the time to update it by now. For it is not
that they could not use a working open-source parser instead.

Thank you for that confirmation that you lack any real intelligence;
though it really was not necessary.

The software in question is useful - very useful - to the most important
person involved; and he sees no need to update it. Many users of this
newsgroup have read pages which have been processed by said software.
By the way, the software in question can do nothing useful with
JavaScript contained within an HTML file - its purpose does not include
that. It is merely necessary that, in reading the file, it passes
through the JavaScript unperturbed.

KETFOB.

 

[Gregor Kofler]

Dr J R Stockton meinte:

The software in question is useful - very useful - to the most important
person involved; and he sees no need to update it. Many users of this
newsgroup have read pages which have been processed by said software.
By the way, the software in question can do nothing useful with
JavaScript contained within an HTML file - its purpose does not include
that. It is merely necessary that, in reading the file, it passes
through the JavaScript unperturbed.

And since some obscure software from the last century needs JS commented
out, you would consider using them "good practice"? If someone is
pressed to use this software, he/she can still add the comments - for
the remaining 99.9999% of the Web/JS authors they are just superfluos.

KETFOB.

Whatever.

Gregor

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>,

Dr J R Stockton meinte:


And since some obscure software from the last century needs JS commented
out, you would consider using them "good practice"? If someone is
pressed to use this software, he/she can still add the comments - for
the remaining 99.9999% of the Web/JS authors they are just superfluos.

Yes. And that says nothing about the quality of the code on the page in
question. However, no-one is pressed to run the software in question,
which is considered to be rather useful (it verifies all local links and
anchors).

Whatever.

If the part of an article before the signature is not of itself
sufficiently comprehensible, note that the writer may be expecting or
requiring you to read the signature itself.