With tongue firmly in cheek, DOM Scripting Task Force member Dean Edwards says:
setAttribute. It also fixes broken browser implementations of the event handling
So, as you can see, it doesn’t do much. But what it does, it does consistently across a lot of platforms.
If you’re finding cross-browser DOM Scripting to be a real hassle, this could be just what you need. It creates a level playing field. You won’t get any fancy animations or $ shortcuts but you will get peace of mind for 20K. This probably isn’t a script for beginners but if you’re an advanced developer, you might appreciate the power this gives you.
- #1 On March 29th, 2007 5:41 am Sebastiaan replied:
How about this one for cross-browser scripting: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/crossbrowserscripting
- #2 On April 4th, 2007 1:08 am Abba Bryant replied:
The thing that gets me is ( and don’t get me wrong, DE is THE man ) that for around 20k you *can* get the fancy $ shortcut functions, animation and cross browser events – and more – with Jquery.
- #3 On April 8th, 2007 6:07 pm Stephan replied:
It will be very helpful to freshers, as they needn’t go through the same browser compatibility issues we faced. And since this is standards based, its all the more better.
- #4 On April 15th, 2007 10:22 am Jeff C. replied:
How would this effect my website http://www.bandwidtht1.com ? Firefox and IE spit out two different versions.
- #5 On April 29th, 2007 9:56 am parisnajd replied:
I haven not seriously tried to use any of the libraries, but they all looked a bit like I’d have to learn a reasonable amount of alternative syntax
- #6 On May 6th, 2007 1:42 pm Sebastian replied:
- #7 On May 11th, 2007 1:18 am Curt replied:
- #8 On May 17th, 2007 2:55 am Andre replied:
- #9 On May 20th, 2007 8:22 pm WaSP Member plauke replied:
- #10 On May 24th, 2007 8:04 am Sebastian replied:
Many thanks for your answer. Can you show me an example?
- #11 On May 24th, 2007 4:11 pm Daniel replied:
but many people deactivated it… :(
- #12 On May 26th, 2007 10:00 am Romina Miersch replied:
I am a PHP programmer who used to do only front end stuff in the time
before managers accepted CSS as a valid way to mark up web pages. ….and I’m a semi-retired software/hardware developer and professional
problem-solver, that now spends available time on making mark up/CSS
work for myself and others – both as a job and as a hobby.
Now I’d really like to get up to speed on CSS but everytime I start
to get into it, it seems like, “oh to make that work in that browser
I’ll need this work around, or it’s going to do this or that”.
Do you make your pages simple so that there’s flexability in the
design, so that browsers don’t notice the difference? (Think Google)
Spending a few hours each month on studying standards and the effect
they have – or doesn’t have – on browsers, is a much more efficient use
- #13 On May 26th, 2007 10:43 am Shannon replied:
- #14 On May 30th, 2007 7:06 am Christian replied:
A question to Romina: Is it right that Google don’t notice the difference with php? I thought Google prefered always HTML and give them an better position?
- #15 On June 3rd, 2007 2:39 pm Sebastian Kalkbrenner replied:
Until JS doesn’t work consistently across browsers, I don’t think it’s worth the hassle at all.
When your page has to be functional without it anyways, I personally can live without fancy eye candy.
Well I know some people can’t. Luckily they aren’t my customers :)
- #16 On June 5th, 2007 12:29 pm Andre replied:
- #17 On June 5th, 2007 3:01 pm Jürgen Harpering replied:
- #18 On June 9th, 2007 12:16 pm Michael replied:
Ask for answer:
HTML could be integrated also in PHP! Why should Google evaluate here differently and then improves positions to assign?
- #19 On June 10th, 2007 5:18 am Michael replied:
I do not think the fact that Google assigns different positions here since also in PHP seems to HTML and can be integrated.
- #20 On June 10th, 2007 7:19 am Romina Miersch replied:
Simplicity is always the best for all solutions, right? Simplicity
comes from understanding complexity. What we provide to our clients
is supposed to be simple, which imposes a great deal of complexity on
us. I’ve always said that the simpler my program is to the client,
the more effort I put into it on my end. Simplicity has it’s price.
Oh, you want to earn a living — well that’s different. Just go back
to using tables, turn out crap for the windozes suits, and cash your
checks. If they want an “accepted” css layout, then import a simple
css defining a font. Besides, they won’t know any better anyway.
In the meantime, learn. Eventually, you’ll convert over because it is
actually easier to do css than to do it the old table based way. And
in doing so, not only will you knock out better sites, but will do so
with more functionality, shorter development time, less maintenance,
and more accessibility for all. It’s a win-win for all. The big
problem here, as always, is convincing management that they thought
of it first.
- #21 On June 11th, 2007 7:25 am Michael replied:
The W3C Consortium adopted recommendation regarding HTML4. The new specification brings improvements with forms, Frames and tables. The support of objects, Skripten and Style Sheets is new.
- #22 On June 11th, 2007 9:07 am Rene Ruettgers replied:
So I think this is a god step to operate with other functions of DHTML around all applications used on a Website.
- #23 On June 12th, 2007 6:38 am domain replied:
Thanks for this!
and so we need a another solution.
- #24 On June 12th, 2007 11:37 am Bernhard Heß replied:
- #25 On June 12th, 2007 12:33 pm Adam replied:
Cross Browser scripting has become really important in past and you need to waste much time on it.
I think every peace of code that helps us here, even if it does’t do much as Dean says himself, makes life easier and we save time.
- #26 On June 13th, 2007 3:10 am Ben Drucker replied:
Also I rank myself among this majority. My interest lies not in the handling of a Programiersprache separates in the ability to learn of a technology for the publication of contents on my Website. With HTML4 I can begin already very much. But I am grateful and content.
- #27 On June 14th, 2007 7:14 am Bramka sms darmowa replied:
- #28 On June 14th, 2007 10:18 am Rolf Beckmann replied:
OK, it depends on the browsers version?
But I use the famous browser Opera.
How do you think of using this browser.
Is there the same problem. Till now I
think Opera is the best browser to test
- #29 On June 15th, 2007 7:36 am Ann Climes replied:
Thanks for this really interesting post. It appears really helpful for me. I would like to ask you if I could translate it and include it in our page, also with link to your page. Alternatively I would like to put link to your page on my section with interesting articles. If it would be possible to put this link on my page please email me. One more time thanks for really great article. Greetings
- #30 On June 15th, 2007 10:10 am Andreas Koops replied:
This is an interesting discussion. I’m a big friend of “In a nutshell, make it small, flexible and standards-based.” We have always problems to create an consistent code for all browsers. Where ist the next Band-Aid for browsers?
- #31 On June 15th, 2007 8:29 pm Romina Miersch replied:
Hallo Mr.Koops… I’ve run into the same thing with marketing agencies who provide web design services. Most I’ve seen tend to concern themselves with how quickly a job can be done and less with the quality of the site altogether, whether in the design or in the code. Many business, whether on the client side or the provider side have a lot to think about when running a business. What I try to get across when talking to people about standards is that it’s really so much simpler than they think, and it can even be much faster than they imagine in the long run to put out the mumbled up messes they were putting out pre-standards.
- #32 On June 16th, 2007 5:58 pm Bernd replied:
I’ am just a rookie in Java-script, but it has a lot of options to use it for websites than people know.
- #33 On June 19th, 2007 3:10 pm Erin replied:
I agree with Andy, but there is a development to web 2.0 standard. Java is a simple way to solve problems to build websites.
- #34 On June 21st, 2007 5:57 am Rafael replied:
- #35 On June 22nd, 2007 5:41 pm Romina Miersch replied:
This means that when you send a request, you wait for the response to come back, but are free to do other things while you wait. The response probably won’t come back immediately, so you set up a function that will wait for the response to be sent back by the server, and react to it once that happens.
Post a Reply
Comments are closed.