IE cannot open the Internet site ... Operation aborted

[Jonathan N. Little]

What makes you think that?



OMG! It's the uber-Mabbett!

Quite underwhelming unless you're using NN4 or MSIE...

 

[Mika]

No style problems can cause that. You've just shifted the problem around a
bit. Edit: I just read you're including google maps code, that'll be
what's doing it.

Okay it turns out we jumped the gun as the problem is still happening,
albeit less often. It is completely random.

The problem is that some code is trying to dynamically create DOM elements

Can anyone suggest another way to do this (which doesn't work)?:
<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->

Have you tried using document.write("<\/body>"); ?

Apologies, could you put the code in context and in laymen's terms please?
Exactly what should we add to make only IE see a </body> command?

 

[Randy Webb]

Mika said the following on 11/19/2007 3:51 PM:
Wow, IE got it right. Imagine that.

Can anyone suggest another way to do this (which doesn't work)?:
<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->

Have you tried using document.write("<\/body>"); ?

Apologies, could you put the code in context and in laymen's terms please?
Exactly what should we add to make only IE see a </body> command?

Instead of trying to work around flaws in your design, maybe you should
be trying to make your code work with valid HTML.

 

[Mika]

Mika said the following on 11/19/2007 3:51 PM:
Wow, IE got it right. Imagine that.

Can anyone suggest another way to do this (which doesn't work)?:
<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->
Have you tried using document.write("<\/body>"); ?

Apologies, could you put the code in context and in laymen's terms
please? Exactly what should we add to make only IE see a </body> command?

Instead of trying to work around flaws in your design, maybe you should be
trying to make your code work with valid HTML.

This is known *bug* with IE that has been much publicised on forums as an
incompatibility between it and Google Maps code. This issue does not occur
on Netscape, Firefox, Safari... it is an IE issue, not 'flaws in our
design'.

We continue to ask for constructive and helpful comments and look forward to
a reply from Stevo. Thank you.

 

[Stevo]

Can anyone suggest another way to do this (which doesn't work)?:
<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->

Have you tried using document.write("<\/body>"); ?

Apologies, could you put the code in context and in laymen's terms please?
Exactly what should we add to make only IE see a </body> command?

I'm not up on using conditional comments, I try to avoid them, but I
would imagine this would work (using the conditional comments syntax
from your example because I don't know the syntax):

<!--[if IE]>
<script type="text/javascript">document.write("<\/body>");</script>
<![endif]-->

 

[Randy Webb]

Mika said the following on 11/19/2007 5:05 PM:

Mika said the following on 11/19/2007 3:51 PM:

Mika wrote:
"Mika" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Thanks for all the tips. Hopefully MS will fix the bug before even
more programmers hate their browser, even if the majority of public
don't.
Okay it turns out we jumped the gun as the problem is still happening,
albeit less often. It is completely random.
The problem is that some code is trying to dynamically create DOM
elements before the page is complete (i.e. before the </body> tag). IE
won't tolerate this.

Wow, IE got it right. Imagine that.

Can anyone suggest another way to do this (which doesn't work)?:
<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->
Have you tried using document.write("<\/body>"); ?
Apologies, could you put the code in context and in laymen's terms
please? Exactly what should we add to make only IE see a </body> command?

Instead of trying to work around flaws in your design, maybe you should be
trying to make your code work with valid HTML.

This is known *bug* with IE that has been much publicised on forums as an
incompatibility between it and Google Maps code.

I like that mentality. Code doesn't work in a browser and it must be the
browser - and not the code - that has a "bug" in it.

 

[Mika]

Mika said the following on 11/19/2007 5:05 PM:

Mika said the following on 11/19/2007 3:51 PM:
Mika wrote:
<snip>

Thanks for all the tips. Hopefully MS will fix the bug before even
more programmers hate their browser, even if the majority of public
don't.
Okay it turns out we jumped the gun as the problem is still
happening, albeit less often. It is completely random.
The problem is that some code is trying to dynamically create DOM
elements before the page is complete (i.e. before the </body> tag). IE
won't tolerate this.
Wow, IE got it right. Imagine that.

Can anyone suggest another way to do this (which doesn't work)?:
<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->
Have you tried using document.write("<\/body>"); ?
Apologies, could you put the code in context and in laymen's terms
please? Exactly what should we add to make only IE see a </body>
command?
Instead of trying to work around flaws in your design, maybe you should
be trying to make your code work with valid HTML.

This is known *bug* with IE that has been much publicised on forums as an
incompatibility between it and Google Maps code.

I like that mentality. Code doesn't work in a browser and it must be the
browser - and not the code - that has a "bug" in it.

Randy with respect we don't have time to paste the evidence here, but there
are programmers furious at MS for this known bug. Try searching some of the
links other users posted above in this thread. We found a MS employee blog
the other day where MS admitted the "bug" in IE.

Please, if you have nothing constructive to say, do not feel the need to
contribute.

 

[Mika]

Can anyone suggest another way to do this (which doesn't work)?:
<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->
Have you tried using document.write("<\/body>"); ?

Apologies, could you put the code in context and in laymen's terms
please? Exactly what should we add to make only IE see a </body> command?

I'm not up on using conditional comments, I try to avoid them, but I would
imagine this would work (using the conditional comments syntax from your
example because I don't know the syntax):

<!--[if IE]>
<script type="text/javascript">document.write("<\/body>");</script>
<![endif]-->

Thanks Stevo, it doesn't seem to work. IE ignores it.

Out of interest why does body have a double-slash "\/" before it?

I wonder if there is another way to say "only if you are IE, close the body
tag here"...

 

[Randy Webb]

Mika said the following on 11/19/2007 6:06 PM:

Can anyone suggest another way to do this (which doesn't work)?:
<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->
Have you tried using document.write("<\/body>"); ?
Apologies, could you put the code in context and in laymen's terms
please? Exactly what should we add to make only IE see a </body> command?

I'm not up on using conditional comments, I try to avoid them, but I would
imagine this would work (using the conditional comments syntax from your
example because I don't know the syntax):

<!--[if IE]>
<script type="text/javascript">document.write("<\/body>");</script>
<![endif]-->

Thanks Stevo, it doesn't seem to work. IE ignores it.

Do you get an alert if you change the document.write to alert? That
would tell you for sure that IE was seeing the code and not just
ignoring the conditional comments.

Out of interest why does body have a double-slash "\/" before it?

The script engine has every right to close the script block when it
encounters the sequence </ after the opening script tag. The / gets
escaped to break up that sequence. That said, there are no modern UA's

I wonder if there is another way to say "only if you are IE, close the body
tag here"...

<script type="text/javascript">
/*@cc_on @*/
/*@if (@_jscript_version >= 4)
document.write('<\/body>');
@end @*/
</script>

 

[rf]

I wonder if there is another way to say "only if you are IE, close the
body tag here"...

<!--[if IE]></body>><![endif]-->

 

[dorayme]

I wonder if there is another way to say "only if you are IE, close the
body tag here"...

<!--[if IE]></body>><![endif]-->

<!--[if IE]><p style="font-size: 130%; font-weight: bold;">I had
to go to a lot of trouble for your browser, hope you appreciate
it!</p></body>><![endif]-->

 

[Steven Saunderson]

<!--[if IE]></body>><![endif]-->

Why do you have ">>" not ">" after body ?

 

[rf]

<!--[if IE]></body>><![endif]-->

Why do you have ">>" not ">" after body ?

Sorry campers, that would be a typo.

<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->

Much more easily tested with

<!--[if IE]>IE &lt;=6 only<![endif]-->

 

[Steven Saunderson]

Why do you have ">>" not ">" after body ?

Sorry campers, that would be a typo.

<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->

Thanks for the clarification. I wondered if I was missing something
here.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Why do you have ">>" not ">" after body ?

Sorry campers, that would be a typo.

<!--[if IE]></body><![endif]-->

Thanks for the clarification. I wondered if I was missing something
here.

Here. Use this as needed --> <

 

[The Magpie]

What makes you think that?

I should have thought that was obvious.

HTML was designed from the start as a subset of SGML that would permit
lax coding of tags and allow addition of non-specified tags such as
the many that Microsoft chose to add to their own implementation back
to HTML 3.x and earlier. XHTML is - of course - simply XML.

 

[The Magpie]

The Magpie said the following on 11/19/2007 1:38 PM:

<sarcasm>
I agree. The support in IE (The most predominant browser on the web)
makes it so safe for the web.
<sarcasm>

Yeah, granted. Microsoft have never been that great and they still
have problems with XHTML sometimes. Not as much as they do with CSS
perhaps, but plenty enough.

On the bright side, use of IE is falling through the floor as use of
compliant browsers such as Firefox (37% of browsers, as of September
this year) increase.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

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

Out of interest why does body have a double-slash "\/" before it?

The pragmatical reason is, I expect, that with just "/" the code will be
deemed invalid by reputable validators such as Opera Ctrl-Alt-V and W3's
downloadable TIDY.

Since you asked, I suspect that you are not in the habit of doing such
validation.

<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/quotings.htm/THardy>

It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j and its FAQ. See below.

 

[Mika]

<!--[if IE]></body>><![endif]-->

Why do you have ">>" not ">" after body ?

Thanks but as stated above this was already what I was using and is not
having any effect.

We are going to look towards rewriting the code for Firefox so we can use it
outside the body tag in all browsers.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I should have thought that was obvious.

HTML was designed from the start as a subset of SGML that would permit
lax coding of tags

True, if "lax coding" means not to code unnecessary parts. The end tags of
elements being optional and not providing a value for boolean attributes
probably had a good purpose in the days where bandwidth was precious. It
only turned out that few people understood how to make use of that feature
properly, and I would assume that with increasing bandwidth it became more
important that the code could be parsed faster. Whereas I still don't agree
with XML's necessity for redundancy caused by disabled="disabled" and the like.

and allow addition of non-specified tags

Wrong. Extensions of the language, which is what you are talking about,
were allowed not before XHTML 1.0.

such as the many that Microsoft chose to add to their own implementation
back to HTML 3.x and earlier.

That was and is Microsoft's fault, not HTML's or TBL's.

XHTML is - of course - simply XML.

XHTML is actually *an application of* XML which is a subset of SGML.

However, there are few validating XML parsers out there, and AFAIK none in
an XHTML user agent, so ensuring correct XHTML markup is not as easy as you
may think. A non-validating XML parser must only choke on not well-formed
markup. That is far from guaranteeing Valid markup, though.


F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html

PointedEars