A
Additya
See how many can you get right. A set of 20 javascript questions.
http://ezdia.com/javascript_quiz/Content.do?id=539
http://ezdia.com/javascript_quiz/Content.do?id=539
O
Osmo Saarikumpu
Additya kirjoitti:
Didn't see any questions, just a blank page plus a banner on top with
most links broken.
Didn't see any questions, just a blank page plus a banner on top with
most links broken.
S
Stevo
Osmo said:
You've probably already got the malware it wanted you to get. You should
be more discriminatory of the links you click on.
P
Peter Michaux
Works for me in Mac Firefox 3.0.15.
Peter
T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Stefan said:
You snipped answer `E', didn't you?
PointedEars
L
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
D would be correct for HTML5.
/L
T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Lasse said:
There is no HTML5 (yet), though.
PointedEars
J
Jorge
Yes, and, in addition:
1.- The *tag* is <script>, the type is an *attribute*, isn't it ?
2.- Don't browsers default to type="text/javascript", anyway ?
J
Jorge
Since when is becoming a standard a prerequisite for something to be ?
M
Matthias Reuter
Jorge said:
If I remember correctly, at the time the type attribute was introduced, no
official mime type for java-/ecmascript existed. "text/javascript" seems
to be the most common value, but many more are in use. I think no browser
cares for which value is given, they all assume ecmascript. This is also
true if no type attribute is given.
Therefore, HTML 5 discontinued to have type a required attribute for the
script tag.
In the meantime, RFC 4329 (of April 2006, see
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt) defines application/javascript and
application/ecmascript, and obsoletes text/javascript and text/ecmascript.
Matt
J
Jorge
And the w3c validates even type="george/ofTheJungle", see, see:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://homepage.mac.com/jorgechamorro/empty.html
P
Peter Michaux
And the w3c validates even type="george/ofTheJungle", see, see:http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://homepage.mac.com/jor...
Sure that validates as HTML syntax but that doesn't mean the page will
behave the way you desired. A browser could choose to ignore script
elements with type="george/ofTheJungle".
Peter
J
Jorge
Indeed, I've been scratching my head for quite a while at least once
because I typed <script type="text/javascrpt"> and the browser was
blatantly ignoring that <script>.
T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jorge said:
With regard to correctness, that is explained in the "Status of this
document" section.
PointedEars
C
Captain Paralytic
Well according to the quiz, the statement:
You need a compiler to compile the scripts of Javascript
is not true.
But surely if you are going to compile a script, you do need a
compiler???
L
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
Jorge said:
If you want to get technical [1], then attributes are part of the
start tag - which is everything between the start-tag-open and
tag-close tokens.
/L
[1] Whoops, no that's me projecting again
T
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Peter said:
And there are widely distributed user agents that ignore `script' elements
where the `type' attribute value is any of "application/javascript" or
"application/ecmascript", so the RFC marking "text/javascript" as obsolete
is only of academical value until that changes (probably by those user
agents reaching their end-of-life and having a tendency to fall into disuse
afterwards.)
PointedEars
J
Jorge
Yes, yes indeed.