The browser of choice

[nandelin]

The browser of choice

My point is that you can't change a keystroke on the fly as you can in IE

Joe, I've included some code below that converts characters to upper case the moment the character is pressed, and appends it to the value of the current input element in a form. If that's not what you want, then just make Firefox your default browser for the next year or so and I bet you'll come up with ways to do what you need to do. Nathan

---

Code

[J.Pluta]

The browser of choice

No joy, Nathan. Because the Gecko engine is missing basic capabilities, you're forced into workarounds to what should be a simple problem. And the workarounds usually don't work. For example, the code you posted won't work when your cursor is not at the end of the field. Now, I'm sure that if you work at it long enough, you'll be able to write enough code to emulate what IE does. But that's my point; with IE I don't have to work around it (see code window). And making Firefox my default browser isn't going to make the Gecko engine any better. The Gecko engine simply isn't as fully featured as IE. Joe

---

Code

[nandelin]

The browser of choice

Joe, I admit that dynamically assigning a value to the keyCode in an event handler is a useful trick. The problem for an organization like Mozilla is that the w3 specification clearly defines keyCode as a readOnly property. So you have a company like Microsoft essentially saying "to DLL with standards, we're going to define our own." MS is a monopoly, so they can do what they want and the world keeps rewarding them. On the other hand, if you believe there's value in having standards for browsers, and supporting platforms like Mac and Linux, then maybe you won't mind coming up with a workaround to Microsoft's way of doing things. Nathan.

[Guest.Visitor]

The browser of choice

This is not about politics or religion. I certainly understand those people who's sole reason to use Firefox is because they deeply hate Microsoft. When i say Firefox lied to me I'm simply talking about what I see on my computer screen. Firefox is withholding information that is important to see while IE shows it. For that reason I can't justify using Firefox. No matter my political feelings about Microsoft. "nandelin15" wrote in message news:6b34235a.42@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > > > I can't trust them anymore. Firefox has lied to me. > > > > > I'm not sure I follow your logic, but if it comes to a question of > credibility, I think Microsoft lied about "innovation" being the driving > motivation behind embedding I.E. deep into the bowels the operating > system, when their real motivation was to eliminate Netscape as a > competitor. Ironically that became one of their worst decisions from a > design standpoint. Now when someone discovers an I.E. exploit, they've > discovered an operating system exploit.

[Guest.Visitor]

The browser of choice

Nathan said: "The problem for an organization like Mozilla is that the w3 specification clearly defines keyCode as a readOnly property." In a competitive capitalistic market generally the market leader decides the standards, not a committee. I agree that this isn't ideal, but the mass consumer doesn't really care. All they want is compatibility and cheap.

[Jeff Crosby]

The browser of choice

Chuck Ackerman wrote: > Nathan, > > I with you on Firefox. I like the program, I like their efforts. I just > can't use it. It's like someone that has lied to me. I can't trust them > anymore. Firefox has lied to me. In the FWIW category, there is an addon for Firefox that allows pages to be opened in a tab in IE _within_ Firefox. http://ietab.mozdev.org/ It doesn't address your concern, but might be helpful to some of you. -- Jeff Crosby Dilgard Frozen Foods, Inc. P.O. Box 13369 Ft. Wayne, IN 46868-3369 260-422-7531 The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the opinion of my company. Unless I say so.

[Guest.Visitor]

The browser of choice

Hi Chuck, I agree this is not about politics or religion, it is about choice. You don't have to hate Microsoft to choose Firefox, there are plenty of reasons to choose Firefox even if you love Microsoft. IE is the market leader, so most sites are written exclusively for it and you can choose not to use an alternative browser. If you do choose an alternative browser then you are also choosing to avoid businesses that don't care or understand about alternatives to IE. Simple choice, no hate, no politics, no lying, no religion. My point at the beggining was and still remains, bugs are not always due to Firefox, but often due to a lack of understanding about alternatives to IE. Those companies that don't understand alternatives may be in for a surprise when IE7 is mainstream. For example the iSeries web admin console seems to be struggling with IE7 beta, but I am still testing that. :-)

[Guest.Visitor]

The browser of choice

Jeff, Thanks for the cool plug-in. However, that begs the question: "How do I know when I should be using that plug-in?" chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Jeff Crosby" wrote in message news:07B34D9B38434FB1ACF1F6685C1986DD@in.WebX.Wawy ahGHajS... > Chuck Ackerman wrote: >> Nathan, >> >> I with you on Firefox. I like the program, I like their efforts. I just >> can't use it. It's like someone that has lied to me. I can't trust them >> anymore. Firefox has lied to me. > > In the FWIW category, there is an addon for Firefox that allows pages to > be opened in a tab in IE _within_ Firefox. > > http://ietab.mozdev.org/ > > It doesn't address your concern, but might be helpful to some of you. > > -- > Jeff Crosby > Dilgard Frozen Foods, Inc. > P.O. Box 13369 > Ft. Wayne, IN 46868-3369 > 260-422-7531 > > The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the opinion of my > company. Unless I say so.

[Guest.Visitor]

The browser of choice

zzypt, I'm hoping that Firefox gains huge momentum which, in turn, will cause many sites to program for Firefox. That way I can start using it. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "zzypt" wrote in message news:6b34235a.51@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Hi Chuck, > > I agree this is not about politics or religion, it is about choice. You > don't have to hate Microsoft to choose Firefox, there are plenty of > reasons to choose Firefox even if you love Microsoft. IE is the market > leader, so most sites are written exclusively for it and you can choose > not to use an alternative browser. If you do choose an alternative browser > then you are also choosing to avoid businesses that don't care or > understand about alternatives to IE. Simple choice, no hate, no politics, > no lying, no religion. > > My point at the beggining was and still remains, bugs are not always due > to Firefox, but often due to a lack of understanding about alternatives to > IE. Those companies that don't understand alternatives may be in for a > surprise when IE7 is mainstream. For example the iSeries web admin console > seems to be struggling with IE7 beta, but I am still testing that. :-)

[J.Pluta]

The browser of choice

I wondered how long it would take before you fell back on the new mantra, "but it's a STANDARD!" It may be a "standard" to you, but a standard written by one guy (Phillipe Le Hégaret: http://www.w3.org/People/all#plh ) isn't much of a standard. In fact, as far as I can tell, the DOM Working Group is all but dead. Check here - http://www.w3.org/DOM/Activity.html - and then compare their activity to any of the other groups. Not only that, but it's a STUPID standard, Nathan, which is why the W3C has little hold on my heart. There is absolutely no reason to make the key code read only, and every reason to make it read/write. The fact that the W3C chooses to make the key code read only means that they don't program for a living, and that they're out of touch with what programmers need to do their job. Not only that, they have no concept of backward compatibility with existing code. If you don't believe me, just look at the specifications. I don't know if you've actually read the standards; I've perused them pretty well, and by now they're actually quite ludicrous. The new keyboard event specification actually has you checking for strings to determine which key was pressed. The keyup event for the "A" key on the keyboard has a KeyIdentified of "U+0041". It would require a complete rewrite of IE to support it. Not to mention that the idea of identifying every possible key on every keyboard with a string is just a bad idea. In addition to strings for every known keyboard language mode (Hangul, Hanja, Kana, et al), there are specific codes for the "Start Application 1" and "Start Application 2" keys, as well as the Sun-specific "Props" key and the ever-popular "PROCESS KEY" key. "Ludicrous" is probably being kind. Anyway, my point is that if you're going to point at the W3C "standard" as a reason for not doing something, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Joe

[R.Daugherty]

The browser of choice

Same pros and cons as Unix all these years. The POSIX "standard" is supported on the AS/400, and I've never heard of any reasonably complex Unix software being offered for OS/400 as if abiding by the "standard" made any difference. Standard what? Standard browser, which is what the standards are about, or something useful on the client side? Let's not forget that hoopla AJAX thing was a totally proprietary extension by Microsoft trying to do something useful from a browser to their server. If it's a "standard" now it's only an absorbed extension, and browsers will be both as standard and extended as Unix has always been. But before anyone cedes MS the market they so richly acquired, I see on /. that IBM in Europe is going to their Linux distro and ending their software contract with MS. I suspect most of the world will be doing that, and like with the core calls behind AJAX, running browsers that emulate MS attempts to make a browser something more than a browser. rd

[Jeff Crosby]

The browser of choice

Chuck Ackerman wrote: > Jeff, > > Thanks for the cool plug-in. However, that begs the question: "How do I > know when I should be using that plug-in?" reminds me of an old joke. A otherwise intelligent student kept getting low or failing grades on English papers due almost solely to misspelled words. Went to the teacher for help. The teacher suggested to use a dictionary whenever he was in doubt about the spelling of a word. The student's reply was "What if I'm never in doubt?" -- Jeff Crosby Dilgard Frozen Foods, Inc. P.O. Box 13369 Ft. Wayne, IN 46868-3369 260-422-7531 The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the opinion of my company. Unless I say so.

[Guest.Visitor]

The browser of choice

Joe Pluta said: "The fact that the W3C chooses to make the key code read only means that they don't program for a living, and that they're out of touch with what programmers need to do their job. " Exactly. Standards committees, by nature, are extremely political. Generaly the health and well being of the end user isn't always addressed. Further, standards committees based in Euroupe, being political in nature, will do what they can to thwart American enterprise. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[nandelin]

The browser of choice

That little key Code feature must be pretty important to you if you're going to attack the standard, the standards body, the author of it, and the idea of having "one" individual author of a standard (like Jefferson - Declaration of Independence, Moses - Book of Deuteronomy). My reference simply pointing out a cultural difference between Mozilla and Microsoft. Microsoft's history is repleat with instances of canibalizing the original innovation of ground breakers and extending it to dominate the market. Mozilla's culture is more circumspect. The standards were in process of implementation long before Microsoft entered the arena. I'm not sure of the reason for making keyCode a readOnly property. It's easy to attack because the author isn't here to defend it. I could only speculate about the reasoning. Perhaps the thought of altering an event would be roughly akin to altering history, which might have unintended consequences as events bubble up through the document hierarchy. Perhaps they thought a better approach would be to enable the results an event to be nullified, while offering the ability to programatically dispatch new ones. My support for Mozilla stems mostly from serving markets where Mac and Linux have footholds. We also have products that run under Palm/OS. IE doesn't help me in those arenas. I've also run into a number of IE weaknesses under Windows that have cost me dozens of hours of workarounds. Nathan.

[J.Pluta]

The browser of choice

ROFLMAO! And you, sir, must have one serious investment in the W3C if you're going to compare it to the Declaration of Independence! But more importantly, please take some time to review the history of the W3C DOM; back in the beginning it was a joint effort between 20 or 30 people. It's now the work of one person. And while you may think Mssr. Le Hégaret is the reincarnation of Jefferson, I sugeest it's pretty unlikely. As to the concept of "cannibalization", if you take a look at the DOM, you'll see that vast swatches of it are direct lifts from either J2EE or .NET, except made more cumbersome and unwieldy. As to the standards being "in the process of implementation long before Microsoft", you're simply wrong there. The concept of the DOM was first introduced in Netscape 2, and with the browser wars of 1997 came the split between the Netscape DOM and the Microsoft DOM. The W3C DOM wasn't even begun until 1998 and while the original W3C DOM seemed like it was trying to be a reasonable compromise and a beginning of a working standard, it seems to have quickly devolved into a typically over-engineered design, like the kind that brought us EJBs. "Perhaps they thought a better approach would be to enable the results an event to be nullified, while offering the ability to programatically dispatch new ones." Well, since Microsoft was already working fine and Gecko had no modifiable events, they in effect simply made up their own new design which was incompatible with everyone. This is the essence of institutional arrogance that often afflicts standards bodies. As to why you choose to use Gecko, that's your own business. I'm not saying you're wrong to standardize on Gecko or the W3C. I'm simply saying it's a business decision. Just don't try to tell me that I'm doing something wrong because I'd rather use a highly documented and powerful standard that exists today as opposed to a less powerful standard that I find poorly engineered and needlessly complex (not to mention in a massive state of flux). Joe