how to turn off meta-refresh ?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
dan baker wrote:
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript1.1">

That's invalid HTML, [...]

[...]
It's not even invalid HTML.

OK, that was exaggerated. It is not valid HTML 4.01 Strict.

in fact I don't know of any which won't (either taking it as their
default type or understanding the language attribute)
It's not even an IE invention, so I'm not sure where you got the idea.

,--------<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.1>--------
| language = cdata [CI]
| Deprecated.

Yes, _deprecated_ not non-standard,
ACK

it will only not work at all in non html user agents such as X-Smiles
or SVG UA's. Of course then it would be ignored.

Depends on what you call `work'. It will not work in Mozilla/5.0 and
IE 6 *as* *assumed*, because those user agents don't care what version
you specify there, they execute that code anyway. On the other hand,
IE 5 (which I can't test here) won't execute code that is within
language="JavaScript1.3" (or greater) as stated by Richard.

No they weren't Microsoft has always considered them distinct,
URL?

it was only Netscape documentation that didn't. If you look at the CLJ
FAQ from July 1998, you'll see that there's a question "What is the DOM"
if it didn't exist until October, they're pretty f'ing prescient.

The first working draft of W3C-DOM Level 1 dates from about a year earlier,
09-Oct-1997.

There's no requirement that variables be part of a global object
called window, [...] I also know of UA's which don't put their
global variable as part of the window object and the above check
would fail - I wouldn't recommend doing it)

You are right, the proper way is

window.myrefresh = window.setTimeout(...);

No, that is not correct, for the same reasons I gave before (window
does not _have_ to be the global object name) [...]

Read again. I create a new property for the `window' object and assign
the result of window.setTimeout(...) which is in fact only an integer.
Then I can use that property value as argument for window.clearTimeout(...)
without any problems. I could use `foobar' instead of `window' and it
will of course still work as long as `foobar' exists.

No, Please name such a UA,

MyTinyBrowserWhichIWriteNow supports JavaScript, but
only HTML 3.2 for a faster Web experience. And now?

There are no user agents supporting only HTML 3.2.

This is false by definition, there *must* *be* UAs supporting only HTML 3.2,
because HTML 4.0 dates from December 1999 (and -- because you go for dates
-- the first working draft that mentions event handlers from 17-Sep-1997).
They *may* *be* not of the recent ones, but they *exist* anyway.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

news:[email protected]...

Please shorten this to one line, thanks.

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
dan baker wrote:
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript1.1">
That's invalid HTML, [...]

[...]
,----<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.1>-----
| language = cdata [CI]
| Deprecated. ...

Deprecated? So strictly it is only invalid HTML 4 Strict but still valid
(if not recommended) in looser DTDs.

ACK, that part was exaggerated.

if (window.myRefresh /* global variables are properties of the
container object; no property, no
clearing necessary */

There's no requirement that variables be part of a global object
called window, [...] I also know of UA's which don't put their
global variable as part of the window object and the above check
would fail - I wouldn't recommend doing it)

You are right, the proper way is

window.myrefresh = window.setTimeout(...);

I don't see the point of using references relative to - window - in this
context.

The whole point is that I check the variable/property before I am accessing
it in the window.clearTimeout(...) call. Because of what Jim stated above I
use the `window' object and create a new property, as for the timeout the
`window' object is used anyway.

A type-converting-to-boolean test on an undeclared global identifier
will produce errors where the same test on the property accessor of a
non-existent global property will not, but typeof tests do not suffer
the same problem so the property accessor syntax is not required when
testing global properties/variables (just potentially useful under some
circumstances).

ACK, but `typeof' was implemented in JavaScript 1.1.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
dan baker wrote:
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript1.1">

That's invalid HTML, [...]

[...]
It's not even invalid HTML.

OK, that was exaggerated. It is not valid HTML *4* since the `type'
attribute is not `IMPLIED' in the HTML 4.01 DTD, neither Strict nor
Transitional.

in fact I don't know of any which won't (either taking it as their
default type or understanding the language attribute)
It's not even an IE invention, so I'm not sure where you got the idea.

,--------<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.1>--------
| language = cdata [CI]
| Deprecated.

Yes, _deprecated_ not non-standard,
ACK

it will only not work at all in non html user agents such as X-Smiles
or SVG UA's. Of course then it would be ignored.

Depends on what you call `work'. It will not work in Mozilla/5.0 and
IE 6 *as* *assumed*, because those user agents don't care what version
you specify there, they execute that code anyway. On the other hand,
IE 5 (which I can't test here) won't execute code that is within
language="JavaScript1.3" (or greater) as stated by Richard.

No they weren't Microsoft has always considered them distinct,
URL?

it was only Netscape documentation that didn't. If you look at the CLJ
FAQ from July 1998, you'll see that there's a question "What is the DOM"
if it didn't exist until October, they're pretty f'ing prescient.

The first working draft of W3C-DOM Level 1 dates from about a year earlier,
09-Oct-1997.

There's no requirement that variables be part of a global object
called window, [...] I also know of UA's which don't put their
global variable as part of the window object and the above check
would fail - I wouldn't recommend doing it)

You are right, the proper way is

window.myrefresh = window.setTimeout(...);

No, that is not correct, for the same reasons I gave before (window
does not _have_ to be the global object name) [...]

Read again. I create a new property for the `window' object and assign
the result of window.setTimeout(...) which is in fact only an integer.
Then I can use that property value as argument for window.clearTimeout(...)
without any problems. I could use `foobar' instead of `window' and it
will of course still work as long as `foobar' exists.

No, Please name such a UA,

MyTinyBrowserWhichIWriteNow supports JavaScript, but
only HTML 3.2 for a faster Web experience. Therefore
it doesn't support the language-Attribute and not the
`onload' or any other intrinsic event handler. And now?

There are no user agents supporting only HTML 3.2.

This is false by definition, there *must* *be* UAs supporting only HTML 3.2,
because HTML 4.0 dates from December 1999 (and -- because you go for dates
-- the first working draft that mentions event handlers from 17-Sep-1997).
They *may* *be* not of the recent ones, but they *exist* anyway.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

news:[email protected]...

Please shorten this to one line, thanks.

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
dan baker wrote:
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript1.1">
That's invalid HTML, [...]

[...]
,----<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.1>-----
| language = cdata [CI]
| Deprecated. ...

Deprecated? So strictly it is only invalid HTML 4 Strict but still valid
(if not recommended) in looser DTDs.

ACK, but it's not valid HTML *4* at all if the `type' attribute is missing.

if (window.myRefresh /* global variables are properties of the
container object; no property, no
clearing necessary */

There's no requirement that variables be part of a global object
called window, [...] I also know of UA's which don't put their
global variable as part of the window object and the above check
would fail - I wouldn't recommend doing it)

You are right, the proper way is

window.myrefresh = window.setTimeout(...);

I don't see the point of using references relative to - window - in this
context.

The whole point is that I check the variable/property before I am accessing
it in the window.clearTimeout(...) call. Because of what Jim stated above I
use the `window' object and create a new property, as for the timeout the
`window' object is used anyway.

A type-converting-to-boolean test on an undeclared global identifier
will produce errors where the same test on the property accessor of a
non-existent global property will not, but typeof tests do not suffer
the same problem so the property accessor syntax is not required when
testing global properties/variables (just potentially useful under some
circumstances).

ACK, but `typeof' was implemented in JavaScript 1.1.


PointedEars

 

[Jim Ley]

window.myrefresh = window.setTimeout(...);

No, that is not correct, for the same reasons I gave before (window
does not _have_ to be the global object name) [...]

Read again. I create a new property for the `window' object and assign
the result of window.setTimeout(...) which is in fact only an integer.

However you don't create the "window" object, so that's rather unsafe,
which is my point, neither assmuing the global object is called
window, nor assuming there is a window object is safe (I did
mis-understand what you were intending the code to do - apologies)

This is false by definition, there *must* *be* UAs supporting
only HTML 3.2,

No, because HTML 3.2 was written such that it described the existing
behaviour of a variety of browsers, it wasn't a standard to be
implemented, and no browsers did implement, they just carried on being
bugwards compatible with the others.

Jim.

 

[Jim Ley]

Please shorten this to one line, thanks.

No, it's appropriate as 2 to contain all the information, not all
newsreaders are threading, not all news posters are threading and the
article may stand alone out of context from the header, there is
nothing inappropriate about 2 line citations.

ACK, but it's not valid HTML *4* at all if the `type' attribute is missing.

Well given that you're posting fragments we neither know if you're
serving HTML 4 - or have used an internal subset to add in a default
value.

Jim.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Please shorten this to one line, thanks.

Why? You have been asked to cite a (any) Usenet standard that will
support your request and so far you haven't, and your argument to date
seems to hinge on stressing the word "line" in "attribution line". If
line means CR (&/|) LF terminated sequence of text I could make the
above into one line by just setting the margins in my news software to
110+ characters and apparently satisfy your criteria. I can see no
reason for doing that as the chances are that it would still be viewed
as two or more lines in most newsreader software, and even your 24
character attribution of me might be displayed across two lines if the
recipient had their viewing window set up sufficiently narrow (granted
that is unlikely).

You might just as easily stress "attribution" and consider what is
required to attribute. You and I may be using identifiers that are
unlikely to be confused with others but in the UK the name John Smith,
for example, is sufficiently common that one individual using that name
would not necessarily be distinguishable from another without an
accompanying email address (even if fake). And if you are going to say
that some individual wrote something it has got to be worth saying where
they wrote it, for which the message ID is probably the most
discriminating identifier available.

I can certainly see grounds for commenting on excessive (and irrelevant)
content in "attribution lines" but if you want to take the term that
literally can you justify loosing "attribution" for the sake of "line"?

The whole point is that I check the variable/property before I
am accessing it in the window.clearTimeout(...) call.

Reasonable, but that could still be done with a typeof test.

Because of what Jim stated above I use the `window' object and
create a new property, as for the timeout the `window' object
is used anyway.

Are you saying that the setTimout/Interval call must follow - window. -
? That is not true.

ACK, but `typeof' was implemented in JavaScript 1.1.

And fortunately JavaScript 1.0 environments are no longer in use.

Richard.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Please shorten this to one line, thanks.

window.myrefresh = window.setTimeout(...);

No, that is not correct, for the same reasons I gave before (window
does not _have_ to be the global object name) [...]

Read again. I create a new property for the `window' object and assign
the result of window.setTimeout(...) which is in fact only an integer.

However you don't create the "window" object, so that's rather unsafe,

Depends. As stated before, `window' and its properties are
part of the core JavaScript language up to version 1.3.

which is my point, neither assmuing the global object is called
window, nor assuming there is a window object is safe (I did
mis-understand what you were intending the code to do - apologies)

I am using window.setTimeout(...) to set the timeout. Do the other
user agents you know where the global object is not `window' provide
$globalObject.setTimeout(...) and $globalObject.clearTimeout(...)
with the same functionality? If not, this is merely of academical
interest.

This is false by definition, there *must* *be* UAs supporting
only HTML 3.2,

No, because HTML 3.2 was written such that it described the existing
behaviour of a variety of browsers, it wasn't a standard to be
implemented, [...]

ACK


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Why? You have been asked to cite a (any) Usenet standard that will
support your request and so far you haven't,

Grepping through the RFCs I have found no standard that supports that, but
that is not important at all. Parts of Son-of-RFC-1036, e.g., which one day
may *become* only a *draft* (maybe in this millenium ;-)) are already obeyed
by NetNews software, and RFC 1036 which an important base of NetNews calls
itself `Standard' but is not even on the IETFs standards track. Sum: Not
everything must be standardized to be reasonable and therefore acceptable.

and your argument to date seems to hinge on stressing the word "line"
in "attribution line".

No, re-read my answer(s). It hinges on the easy readability of a posting/
thread which is a Good Thing. Header information included in the attribution
line that may be *someday* of use for *someone* doesn't compensate for a
more difficult following of a discussion, mentally ignoring superfluous
information when reading *now*.

Reasonable, but that could still be done with a typeof test.

I did not doubt that.

Are you saying that the setTimout/Interval call must follow - window. -
?
No.

That is not true.

I know, because `window' is the global object here -- as tests with
Netscape 3.0 to 7.1, IE 6 and Opera (all under Win2k) have proven.
But can you name a user agent where the global object is _not_ `window'
_and_ provides $globalObject.setTimeout/clearTimeout?

And fortunately JavaScript 1.0 environments are no longer in use.

How do you know for sure?


PointedEars

 

[Jim Ley]

Please shorten this to one line, thanks.

Please stop wasting lines saying this, thanks.

Depends. As stated before, `window' and its properties are
part of the core JavaScript language up to version 1.3.

So that would be relevant to precisely one user agent? (Netscape 4).

Generally we try and talk about all ECMAScript implementations now
commonly known as javascript here, otherwise life would be really very
dull.

I am using window.setTimeout(...) to set the timeout. Do the other
user agents you know where the global object is not `window' provide
$globalObject.setTimeout(...) and $globalObject.clearTimeout(...)
with the same functionality? If not, this is merely of academical
interest.

Yep! They certainly do.

Jim.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Grepping through the RFCs I have found no standard that
supports that, but that is not important at all.

<snip>

It is important if you want to persuade other people to adopt a course
of action that they otherwise perceive to be completely arbitrary.

No, re-read my answer(s). It hinges on the easy readability
of a posting/ thread which is a Good Thing. Header information
included in the attribution line that may be *someday* of use
for *someone* doesn't compensate for a more difficult following
of a discussion, mentally ignoring superfluous information when
reading *now*.

Personally I don't find that the number of carriage return/line feed
pairs in an attribution line has any impact on my ability to easily
comprehend news postings.

<snip.

But can you name a user agent where the global object is _not_
`window' _and_ provides $globalObject.setTimeout/clearTimeout?

I don't see the relevance of this. I have been questioning the worth of
referring to properties of the global object relative to a - window -
reference because that is unnecessary and must be fractionally slower. I
do not doubt that a property accessor syntax relative to a - window -
reference will be effective on JavaScript capable HTML web browses (at
least where setTimeout/Interval are concerned) but why do that when it
is unnecessary?

How do you know for sure?

Nothing is known for sure, but if there were JavaScript 1.0 environments
in use this group is where I would expect to here about them. What I do
know with almost certainty is that anyone still using a JavaScript 1.0
web browser is not finding doing so a productive activity these days.

Richard.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

comp.lang.javascript on October 19, 2003 07:33 Central European Summer
Time about "Re: how to turn off meta-refresh ?" with the message-id
<[email protected]> a followup to the posting with the
message-id <[email protected]> while the temperature outside
here was about 21.7°C, quite warm for the season and daytime (or was it the
infrared radiation from the heating?) the following 32 lines:

So that would be relevant to precisely one user agent?
(Netscape 4).

No, how do you get that idea?

Generally we try and talk about all ECMAScript implementations now
commonly known as javascript here, otherwise life would be really very
dull.

I really don't see the point.

JavaScript 1.3 is according to Netscapes Core JavaScript Reference
a fully compatible implementation of ECMAScript Ed. 1 and includes
host objects like `window' anyway.

Yep! They certainly do.

ACK


PointedEars

 

[Jim Ley]

No, how do you get that idea?

Because Netscape 4, is the only user agent that ever implemented
JavaScript 1.3 - Mozilla has JavaScript 1.5, IE has had various
JScript implementations, Konqueror and Safari have KJS
implementations, iCab and Opera have their own ECMAScript
implementations - sure we know they're all pretty similar to
JavaScript, but they are not JavaScript 1.3 (there's no watch for
example)

JavaScript 1.3 is according to Netscapes Core JavaScript Reference
a fully compatible implementation of ECMAScript Ed. 1 and includes
host objects like `window' anyway.

You're freely allowed to add objects to ECMAScript (it would be a
useless language if you didn't, but that doesn't make your extensions
part of the language.

Jim.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

No, how do you get that idea?

Because Netscape 4, is the only user agent that ever implemented
JavaScript 1.3 [...]

Read the Client-Side JavaScript (1.3) Reference[1] and you see that the
window object and most of its methods were implemented in JavaScript 1.0.
I wrote `*up to* version 1.3' for a reason. And that includes at least
Netscape Navigator 2.0 to 4.8.[2]

[1] http://devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/
[2]
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/preface.html#1003267

You're freely allowed to add objects to ECMAScript

I know.

[...], but that doesn't make your extensions part of the language.

Not part of ECMAScript, but part of JavaScript which Netscape has done.
See the difference?


PointedEars

 

[Jim Ley]

Depends. As stated before, `window' and its properties are
part of the core JavaScript language up to version 1.3.

So that would be relevant to precisely one user agent?
(Netscape 4).

No, how do you get that idea?

Because Netscape 4, is the only user agent that ever implemented
JavaScript 1.3 [...]

Read the Client-Side JavaScript (1.3) Reference[1] and you see that the
window object and most of its methods were implemented in JavaScript 1.0.
I wrote `*up to* version 1.3' for a reason. And that includes at least
Netscape Navigator 2.0 to 4.8.[2]

Oh right, okay, NN 2-4.8, still completely irrelevant to 99% of the
questions on this groups and certainly not relevant to the start of
this thread where you were mentioning IE and "recent UA's" - you
didn't mention << NN4 then - I also don't agree that the
documentation your citing actually supports your case, the
documentation being for "javascript language and its objects", but
even if it does (and it's debateable) it's not particularly relevant.

Jim.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, seen in
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Please shorten this to one line, thanks.

The size of an attribution is at the discretion of the poster; AIUI, you
can cite no authority that states otherwise.

Desist.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, seen in
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

[...]
Evidently you do not understand the full variety of circumstances under
which someone who has a copy of an article can make use of an
informative attribution. Be aware, for example, that someone who has
saved a copy of an article which *quotes* an attribution line has not
saved the header of the attributing article.

Evidently you do not understand what headers are and what their function
is. Most news clients are saving headers with articles (see the .eml format
for example) and one can include the information *when* *required*.

The information in an attribution is not contained in the header of the
article containing the attribution; it is extracted from the header of
the article being replied to. The attribution adds to the information
content of the article containing it. When an article is saved for
longer than one's news client normally saves articles, it is probable
that, when later reading the saved article, its predecessor will not be
locally available.

Evidently you do not know of news archives like Google Groups,
where one can (in most cases) re-read whole discussions when a
single message ID or even a keyword has been provided.

News is a medium suited to off-line use; the Web, and GG in particular,
is not. I would not, of course, support re-posting in News of large
quantities of material that can be recovered from the Web; but the
modest amount that many of us include can be useful to those reading the
article in News, or reading a stored copy.

And evidently you do not even think about paying respect to core Internet
and Usenet standards, namely not using a valid e-mail address (as stated
by RFCs 1036 and 2822), not having installed the `postmaster' account for
your(?) sub-level domain (as stated by RFC 1173), and not obeying the core
rules of Netiquette (RFC 1855), so I do not see the point of discussing
the justification of (my) statements by those standards with you.

You continue with your false assumptions. You do not understand what
has occurred in this case.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [wrote:]

Evidently you do not understand what headers are and what their function
is. Most news clients are saving headers with articles (see the .eml format
for example) and one can include the information *when* *required*.

The information in an attribution is not contained in the header of the
article containing the attribution; it is extracted from the header of
the article being replied to.

I get the idea that you really think that this information was new to me.

The attribution adds to the information content of the article containing
it. When an article is saved for longer than one's news client normally
saves articles, it is probable that, when later reading the saved article,
its predecessor will not be locally available.

You may want to explain why it is then necessary to know when
the unavailable article was posted and in which newsgroup ...

News is a medium suited to off-line use; the Web, and GG in particular,
is not.

.... if you do not accept even the Web/Google Groups as an
appropriate medium of investigation.

I would not, of course, support re-posting in News of large
quantities of material that can be recovered from the Web;

Non sequitur. I don't recommend people to act as a Human gateway either.

but the modest amount

Since replies can contain down to only one line of new information,
IMHO three lines of meta information is not a modest amount.

that many of us include can be useful
to those reading the article in News, or reading a stored copy.

You oppose yourself. If one maintains a local news archive, they would
use most certainly a software that can follow references. And if the
article expires, its posting date is barely of interest any longer.

If one doesn't maintain such an archive, they would have access to the
Internet/Usenet and can access the thread for the stored posting somehow,
in the unlikely case that this is required. If they don't have immediate
access, they would have saved the whole thread in the first place.

You continue with your false assumptions. You do not understand what
has occurred in this case.

Then why don't you enlighten me and explain what has occured in this case?
So far I only got a bounce when sending you e-mail using the substring you
used in the `From:' header as e-mail address, and I must therefore conclude
that it is no e-mail address. So far I got a bounce when addressing the
`postmaster' account for the domain part of that substring and I must
therefore conclude that either the host is misconfigured or that this domain
cannot receive e-mail at all.


PointedEars

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, seen in
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Then why don't you enlighten me and explain what has occured in this case?
So far I only got a bounce when sending you e-mail using the substring you
used in the `From:' header as e-mail address, and I must therefore conclude
that it is no e-mail address. So far I got a bounce when addressing the
`postmaster' account for the domain part of that substring

That is, so far, in accordance with my expectations.

and I must
therefore conclude that either the host is misconfigured or that this domain
cannot receive e-mail at all.

That is, however, a false deduction.

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

[postmaster account bounced]

That is, however, a false deduction.

An SMTP server with no postmaster account is misconfigured. Even if it is
deliberate.

/L