Script for Hiding/Un-Hiding Text On Click

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

On Jul 31, 9:30 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <[email protected]>
wrote: [snip]

Could you *please* at least try to retain context?

[Context restored]

What does? And in what version of Netscape? The later revisions
were tested in at least two versions of Netscape (as well as six
other browsers and a cell phone.)

The NRLB has been spotted in all Netscape 4.x versions. Since it is
kind of a heisenbug (not reproducible, probably due to a caching issue),
you are not likely to encounter it when you are looking for it. You
will, however, encounter it at least once in the script's lifetime. It
does exist.

The NRLB is (AFAIK) as follows: (At least) Netscape 4.x cannot handle
dynamically written code in the `head' element, reason unknown.

Maybe one of the other regulars can explain it in more detail. I had
only heard of it in de.comp.lang.javascript, tested it, and saw it
confirmed several times. So I avoid to trigger it again, and recommend
so. Especially when using style includes that Netscape 4.x does not
support makes it unnecessary in the first place:

<link rel="stylesheet" href="!ns4.css" type="text/css"
media="screen">

I have no idea what that means. But you may wish to keep reading the
thread as the example has been discussed to death and revised five
or six times.

I am talking about the CSS rules that you include with scripting above.
That could be facilitated if you simply set the style on each fitting
element through interation. However, when I think about it, if NN4 was
a target browser, which does not support that approach, the above
proposition would be reasonable instead.

[...] window.onload = windowLoad;

Needlessly proprietary approach. The (X)HTML body element provides
a standards compliant and well-supported `onload' event handler
attribute:

That line is in the head of the document. The body element doesn't
exist at that point.

Non sequitur.

I never use inline event attributes. That was a topic of another
recent thread about unobtrusive scripting.

So you are *deliberately* making your code *not interoperable* by
insisting on using *proprietary* features where a *well-supported*
*standards-compliant* alternative exists? I think that is to be called
ignorant incompentence.

[...]

Don't quote name signatures unless you refer to it, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What is this from?

Read the Source, Luke.


PointedEars€

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 8/1/2007 8:06 AM:

On Jul 31, 9:30 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <[email protected]>
wrote: [snip]

Could you *please* at least try to retain context?

[...] After you complained about context you
didn't even restore the full context.

True, my bad.

[Context restored]

[full Context restored]

if (document.getElementById) document.write('<style type="text/
css">div.question div {display:none} div.question a

The NRLB has been spotted in all Netscape 4.x versions. Since it is
kind of a heisenbug (not reproducible, probably due to a caching issue),
you are not likely to encounter it when you are looking for it. You
will, however, encounter it at least once in the script's lifetime. It
does exist.

And it won't be encountered by trying to write that style element as
NN4.xx series browsers will never execute the document.write statement.

Most certainly. (See? *I* don't have a problem to admit when I'm wrong.)

Try reading the code again.

[x] done

There is nothing to "explain" as it will never come into play. Perhaps
you should go back to de.comp.lang.javascript and have them explain to
you why the above code would *not* trigger the NRLB bug in a 10 year old
browser.

Where I saw it, the object test was not included, because the object did
not yet exist at that time. Still I think mentioning the style include
was not a complete waste.

You are referring to what has already been covered - along with the
pitfalls - of alternative approaches. Had you read and understood the
entire thread you would realize that.

Again, if duplicates bother you, just leave Usenet.

[...] window.onload = windowLoad;
Needlessly proprietary approach. The (X)HTML body element provides
a standards compliant and well-supported `onload' event handler
attribute:
That line is in the head of the document. The body element doesn't
exist at that point.

Non sequitur.

It is very relevant.

Granted, it is relevant in the sense that `window.onload' is error-prone
because of that. However, the statement that it is in the head of the
document constitutes no reasoning for not using the `onload' event
handler attribute of the `body' element. Because, when the `load' event
fires for the `body' element, the `body' element exists.

[...]

Don't quote name signatures unless you refer to it, please.

Ummm, yooooohooooo, moron, he asked a specific question about your
signature and as such it is the *only* way to "retain context" is by
quoting it.

The name was not part of the message signature, and he did not refer to
the name. So quoting it was uncalled for.


PointedEars