TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: HTML Programming vs. PDF From:Scott Gray <scotty -at- CM -dot- MATH -dot- UIUC -dot- EDU> Date:Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:45:12 -0600
Kris,
Beware of the bugs in IE 4.0! There is a well know bug with the
window.open(); method in Explorer.
The other thing is that JavaScript 1.2 is much more superior than
JavaScript or JScript. Netscape pretty much handed over complete control
of the browser to developers the Event Object is awesome allowing the
capture of every event you can think of. It's too bad that Microsoft
is not suporting 1.2 cause it would make my life easier.
"I hear and I forget, I see and I forget, I do and I forget" -- confused.
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Kris Olberg wrote:
> >>>I see that as a drawback, actually. Explorer doesn't read JavaScript, but
> >>>JScript. But Netscape doesn't honor JScript...Java applets require
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>This is only partly true. Internet Explorer does support JavaScript.
> Here's
> >>a snippet from www.microsoft.com:
> >>
> >>"Will JavaScript work in Internet Explorer 4.0?
> >>
> >>Most functionality in JScript and JavaScript will work across both the
> >>Internet Explorer 4.0 and Netscape Navigator 4.0 browsers. The key issue
> >>here is that Internet Explorer 4.0 is already fully EMCA-compliant, while
> >>Netscape has announced that it intends to support ECMAScript. Internet
> >>Explorer 4.0 continues to lead in the standards arena, through its support
> >>for key standards such as ECMAScript."
> >>
> >>IE 3.x supports nearly the same object/event model used for Netscape 2.x
> >>browsers.
> >
> >I'm sorry, Kris, but "nearly the same" isn't "the exact same" and with the
> >browser companies subtly shifting the ground from under one another's feet,
> >I can't in good conscience wholeheartedly back this approach to online
> >documentation. Clients don't pay us for wonderous experiments, but for
> >predictable, reliable delivery.
>
> You did say that IE "doesn't read JavaScript," which is not true regardless
> of the extent.
>
> I do understand your reluctance, especially given your client base. I write
> JavaScript that must work with IE 3.x, Netscape 3.x, and also on a Win3.1
> platform. It's not easy. But learning the object/event models supported by
> each of these browsers allowed me to quickly rule out the few unsupported
> objects/events in each.
>
> Overall, I have found that IE 4.0 interprets JavaScript better than Netscape
> 4.0. For one thing, objects in an HTML page are global rather than local,
> making the code easier to write. This means I don't have to explicitly pass
> the object around from function to function as a parm. With Netscape, this
> doesn't work. Now you could argue that IE violates strict encapsulation, and
> I couldn't disagree with you on that point.
>
> BTW, if you get a chance to browser one of Microsoft's web sites, view the
> source and note the usage of language="javascript" in their scripting. You
> might be surprised (as I was) at how prevalent it is.
>
> Regards...Kris
> -----------------------------
> kolberg -at- actamed -dot- com
> kris -at- olberg -dot- com
>
>
>
