I was looking at a "best practices" guide in relation to the inclusion of javascript in web pages (dynamic and static) which suggested that developers should always comment out javascript due to older browsers being unable to support the scripting language.
Is this true?
I tried searching for issues surrounding compatibility but could find nothing - I'm wondering if the information is out of date, as I've never heard of browsers having no idea what scripting is; a separate issue from javascript being deliberately disabled.
By "any" I obviously mean any non-discontinued browser.
Partial duplicate: What web browsers do not support Javascript? and how to identify which browser is client using?
Javascript is widely available, but there are some cases where you cannot rely on its presence.
First of all, the NoScript extension has been pretty successful - I'm not sure if it is still widely used, but you can except that at least a small portion of your users will use it (even if they whitelist your website later).
Another thing to keep in mind is that some browser just cannot implement a good Javascript engine. The best example which comes to mind is TTY-related browsers such as lynx.
Finally, don't forget that some people here are disabled, such as blind peoples, and have to use very specific browsers, which probably cannot work very well along Javascript.
[edit] About the specific "developers should always comment out javascript due to older browsers being unable to support the scripting language" question, I assume you're referencing the following pattern :
<script>//<!--
Actual source code here
//--></script>
Afaik, every modern browser knows what a script tag is, even if they ignore it. I'm not aware of any browser which prints script tag contents.
Related
With respect to HTML/web .... The_principles_of_unobtrusive_JavaScript
points out that in some cases there won't be any JavaScript support.
Do such environment - without JavaScript still exist or this is an old article ?
The article you posted is long. It does cover many practices that are good to use today. I wanted to address a few statements the article made on assumptions.
Assumption: everybody’s browser supports JavaScript. Not true: In
order to be unobtrusive to users, taking away the script should not
preclude them from using your site, even though their interaction will
be far less rich than that of users whose browser does support
JavaScript.
All major browsers such as Chrome, Safari, IE, Firefox, and Opera support Javascript. Users may manually disable it, but you can assume most of your users will have Javascript. However, you can use a <noscript> tag as a precaution for users that do not have Javascript running. The data in The <noscript> tag will only be displayed if javascript is not running.
Assumption: all browsers work the same. Not true: In order to be
unobtrusive to browsers, your script should steer clear of plain
errors and compatibility problems, and take special devices such as
speech browsers or mobile phones into account.
All browsers do not work the same. You need to be careful with Javascript and CSS (style) to support all the major browsers. Certain functions may be depreciated or unsupported in some browsers.
Assumption: everybody else will understand my code. Not true: In order
to be unobtrusive to fellow programmers, your script should consist of
clear, clean code and feature a lot of comments to say what your code
is (supposed to be) doing.
You should always try to make your code affective and clear.
I am trying to validate the JavaScript on my website. The scripts do not throw any errors and run fine on Chrome and Firefox (latest stable version). However, the animated parts absolutely do not work on IE (9)[*1][*solved]. I have used jQuery and jQueryUI for the animation and had hoped that it would be cross browser compatible.
Usually I would not have cared abut IE users, but liked the idea of folks at anybrowser.org and thought of sticking to a standard instead of using the lowest common denominator and leave the graceful degradation to the browsers / JS engines. My page is HTML5 compliant according to the w3c validator and I wanted to do the same with JavaScript, but could not find an acceptable way to do it.
Why JSLint did not work -
It will not take the page and check it like w3c validator.
So there is no way to check jQuery referenced script. (There are a few SO posts on this).
I did find an ECMA-264 test page that would check the browser, but not my JavaScript.
The question after all the preamble is: How do I validate the Javascript on my webpage? Is there an authoritative validator for JavaScript?
*1 Added: The minification has nothing to do with the script not working on IE9. Even the unminified version does not work.
*Solved: The problem with the specific page was solved by this comment.
This started as "What is Javascript?" got closed here and migrated to Programmers. Thanks to YannisRizos for helping me to split the original question to something that was acceptable between Programmers and SO.
A test suite. No really.
If you want to ensure your javascript runs perfectly in every target environment, then you write a test suite for your code and make sure it passes in all your target environments.
A test suite helps find where your code breaks when run on different platforms. And therefore helps you fix it.
But assuming you want something that is less work, http://www.jshint.com/ is your best bet.
Or http://www.jslint.com/ if you like getting yelled at.
But honestly, no validator will ever be able to ensure that your code runs without error and exactly how you expect everywhere. Simply because your code follows best practices correctly, that doesn't mean it will work in an old version of IE.
Standards evolve, but an old browser that never updates get stuck with whatever standard was out at the time that the browser maker may or may not have even implemented successfully or accurately.
Testing, automated or manual, is the only way to ensure things work universally.
Is there any way to recognise pen pressure using javascript.
Preferably I don't want to make any use of Flash and try get this done as pure JS.
EDIT: okay I realised that it is kind of possible for Wacom tablets as they come with software that can work with their javascript api to make it possible (demos). But it's no good for people with Trust tablets or any other brand... So no good really.
Any body know how to do it in C# if not JS?
Yes - if the user has a Wacom tablet installed, then their browser will have a plugin for it that you can access. http://www.wacomeng.com/web/index.html
edit from author: I wrote this a very long time ago. Please see the comments below
Microsoft implemented something called Pointer Events in IE 11. It allows you to access pressure property along with stuff like pen tilt and size of contact geometry.
So far it only works on IE11 (and IE10 with vendor prefixes) but there is a W3C candidate recommendation so maybe it will be standard in future.
Javascript as a programming language in itself has no more ability or lack of ability to read this kind of data than any other language.
The language isn't important. What is important are the APIs available to you from within the language.
Javascript can be run in a number of different environments, some of which may possibly have access to APIs for this kind of hardware. However most Javascript is run in a web browser environment, and this is clearly what you mean.
The web browser environment provides a number of APIs. The most obvious is the DOM, which gives you the ability to manipulate the page, etc. There are other APIs available in the browser as well though. For example, the Geolocation API.
All these are standard APIs which have been defined by the W3C (or in some cases are in the process of being defined by the W3C), meaning that all browsers that support them should make them work the same way.
Unfortunately for you there isn't a standard API for working with pressure pads, so the direct answer to your question is no, it can't be done.
Whether one will become available in the future remains to be seen, but I have my doubts.
There is one way that you can do it though: ActiveX.
ActiveX is an API provided by Microsoft in older versions of IE. It basically provides a way of accessing virtually any Windows DLL code from within the browser.
Since the pressure pen device driver for Windows will be provided as a DLL, this means you should theoretically be able to access it in the browser via an ActiveX control. So therefore yes, you would be able to program it using Javascript.
The bad news, though, is that this is not something I'd recommend. ActiveX as a browser-based technology has long since been abandoned, due to the massive security holes it caused. I don't think the latest versions of IE even support it (I hope not, anyway), which means you'd be forced to use old versions of IE (and only IE - no other browser ever supported it) in order to run your code. Not ideal.
No, that's not possible. Probably not even with Flash.
You can only do so in an Native app. Javascript does not have access to pen pressure information
In Coders at work, Douglas Crockford discusses how bugs in browsers cause Javascript to be a complex, clunky language and fixing it is a catch-22. In Beginning JavaScript with DOM scripting and Ajax Christian Heilmann says something similar "[The] large variety of user agents, of different technical finesse [...] is a great danger to JavaScript."
Why doesn't JS have a breaking new version? Is there something inherent n the language design where backwards compatibility becomes a must?
Update
Why can't javascript run with multiple engines in parallel? Similar to how .NET runs versions 2, 3 and 4 on the same machine.
Lazy copypasta at OP's request:
JavaScript is just a programming language: syntax and semantics. It has no built-in support for browsers (read: the browser DOM). You could create a JS program that runs outside of a browser. You (should) know what an API is - the DOM is just a JavaScript API for manipulating an HTML page. There are other DOM APIs in other languages (C#, Java, etc.), though they are used more for things like XML. Does that make sense?
Perhaps this MDC article can clarify further.
Well a breaking change would break a lot of existing websites, which would make a lot of people very angry :)
Backwards compatibility is important because of the large number of browsers deployed and the wide variety of versions of those browsers.
If you serve a new, incompatible kind of Javascript to old browsers, they all break.
If you invent a new language that is not considered to be Javascript by existing browsers, then it doesn't work with the majority of browsers. Very few users will be willing to download a new browser just to work with your new language. So web developers have to keep writing compatible Javascript to support the majority of the users, no matter how great the new language is.
A lot of people would like to see something better than current Javascript be supported by browsers, but it just isn't going to happen any time soon. All the makers of browsers and development tools would have to support the new thing, and continue to support the old Javascript stuff too. Many interested parties just wouldn't consider the benefit to be worth the cost. Slow evolution of Javascript seems to be the only viable solution.
As a matter of fact, ECMAScript 5 is not fully backwards-compatible for the very reasons you mentioned.
Inertia.
Making a breaking change would break too many sites, no browser vendor would want to deal with all the bug reports.
And PHBs would be against targeting a new version, why should they have their developers write javascript for the broken and the fixed languages? Their developers will have to write it for the broken version anyway so why bother with 2 implementations (which from a developer perspective sucks too since now they have to update, support and debug 2 separate trees).
Ecmascript 5 has a "strict" mode. I think this strict mode is intended to combat the problem you mention. Eventually you'd mark scripts "strict" that you want to use the new engine, all others get run in an old crufty VM, or with un-optimized codepaths or whatever.
This is kind like IE and Mozilla browsers having multiple "modes" of rendering websites (IE even swaps out rendering engines).
See this question about it
Javascript has subtle differences across different browsers. This is because each browser manufacturer has different sets of responsibilities to their users to support backwards compatibility (if any). If I had to pick, I'd say the biggest barrier to the advancement of javascript is older versions of Internet Explorer. Due to service agreements with their users, Microsoft is contractually obliged to support older browsers. Even if other browsers cutoff backwards-compatibility, Microsoft will not. To be fair, Microsoft does realize how terrible their browsers are and will hopefully push IE 9.0 very hard. Despite the inconsistencies of javascript across different browsers, they are subtle enough to make cross-browser programming more than feasible. Abruptly cutting off backwards-compatibility would be a practice that would make web development a nightmare. Incrementally cutting of backwards-compatibility for specific aspects of javascript is feasible.
There is much more else wrong with JavaScript. You can't be fully backwards-compatible with things that were never fully compatible when they were fresh... Say, the length of the array [1,] is reported as 2 by at least older versions of internet explorer.
The biggest fault of JavaScript is that is comes with a tiny, incomplete and pretty much unusable standard library. That is why everyone retreats to using jQuery, Dojo, Mochikit etc. - these offer mostly functionality that should be part of some standard library included with the browsers instead of floating around in thousands of copies and versions. It's actually what makes .NET and Java so popular: the language comes with a reasonable standard library. With C and C++, you have to dig out the nice libraries (Boost e.g.) yourself.
But other than that, the ECMAScript standard occasionally is updated.
Google is also trying to do this bold step forwards and redo JavaScript in a slightly more sane way. The efforts are known as Dart: http://www.dartlang.org/
For all I can tell, Dart largely uses the syntax of JavaScript minus a couple of its quirks. Apart from that, it also is nicer for the virtual machine and will thus likely run faster (unless of course you compile Dart to Javascript and use a JavaScript VM; which is offered as a compatibility option). But of course any hardcore JavaScript nazi^W enthusiast will not like anything that claims to be better than JavaScript. Whereas for me, they don't go far enough. In particular, they still don't provide enough "classpath".
I'm not a JavaScript wiz, but is it possible to create a single embeddable JavaScript file that makes all browsers standards compliant? Like a collection of all known JavaScript hacks that force each browser to interpret the code properly?
For example, IE6 does not recognize the :hover pseudo-class in CSS for anything except links, but there exists a JavaScript file that finds all references to :hover and applies a hack that forces IE6 to do it right, allowing me to use the hover command as I should.
There is an unbelievable amount of time (and thus money) that every webmaster has to spend on learning all these hacks. Imagine if there was an open source project where all one has to do is add one line to the header embedding the code and then they'd be free to code their site per accepted web standards (XHTML Strict, CSS3).
Plus, this would give an incentive for web browsers to follow the standards or be stuck with a slower browser due to all the JavaScript code being executed.
So, is this possible?
Plus, this would give an incentive for web browsers to follow the standards or be stuck with a slower browser due to all the JavaScript code being executed.
Well... That's kind of the issue. Not every incompatibility can be smoothed out using JS tricks, and others will become too slow to be usable, or retain subtle incompatibilities. A classic example are the many scripts to fake support for translucency in PNG files on IE6: they worked for simple situations, but fell apart or became prohibitively slow for pages that used such images creatively and extensively.
There's no free lunch.
Others have pointed out specific situations where you can use a script to fake features that aren't supported, or a library to abstract away differences. My advice is to approach this problem piecemeal: write your code for a decent browser, restricting yourself as much as possible to the common set of supported functionality for critical features. Then bring in the hacks to patch up the browsers that fail, allowing yourself to drop functionality or degrade gracefully when possible on older / lesser browsers.
Don't expect it to be too easy. If it was that simple, you wouldn't be getting paid for it... ;-)
Check out jQuery it does a good job of standardizing browser javascript
Along those same lines explorercanvas brings support for the HTML5 canvas tag to IE browsers.
You can't get full standards compliance, but you can use a framework that smooths over some of the worst breaches. You can also use something called a reset style sheet.
There's a library for IE to make it act more like a standards-compliant browser: Dean Edwards' IE7.
Like a collection of all known
javascript hacks that force each
browser to interpret the code properly
You have two choices: read browser compatibility tables and learn each exception a browser has and create one yourself, or use avaiable libraries.
If you want a javascript correction abstraction, you can use jQuery.
If you want a css correction abstraction, you can check /IE7/.
I usually don't like to use css corrections made by javascript. It's another complexity to my code, another library that can insert bugs to already bugged browsers. I prefer creating conditional statements to ie6, ie7 and such and create separate stylesheets for each of them. This approach works and doesn't generate a lot of overhead.
EDIT: (I know that we have problems in other browsers, but since IE is the major browser out there and usually we need really strange hacks to make it work, css conditional statements is a good approach IMO).
Actually you can,there are lots of libraries to handle this issue. From the start of the time, javascript compliance issue always was a problem for developers and thanks to innovative ones who developed libraries to get over this problem...
One of them and my favorite is JQuery.
Before JavaScript 1.4 there was no global arguments Array, and it is impossible to implement the arguments array yourself without a highly advanced source filter. This means it is going to be impossible for the language to maintain backwards-compatibility with Netscape 4.0 and Internet Explorer 4.0. So right out I can say that no, you cannot make all browser standards compliant.
Post-netscape, you can implement nearly all of the features in the core of the language in JavaScript itself. For example, I coded all methods of the Array object in 100% JavaScript code.
http://openjsan.org/doc/j/jh/jhuni/StandardLibrary/1.81/index.html
You can see my implementation of Array here if you go to the link and then go down to Array and then "source."
What most of you are probably referring to is implementing the DOM objects yourself, which is much more problematic. Using VML you can implement the Canvas tag across all the modern browsers, however, you will get a buggy/barely-working performance in Internet Explorer because VML is markup which is not a good format for implementing the Canvas tag...
http://code.google.com/p/explorercanvas/
Flash/Silverlight: Using either of these you can implement the Canvas tag and it will work quite well, you can also implement sound. However, if the user doesn't have any browser plugins there is nothing you can do.
http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/
DOM Abstractions: On the issue of the DOM, you can abstract away from the DOM by implementing your own Event object such as in the case of QEvent, or even implementing your own Node object like in the case of YAHOO.util.Element, however, these usually have some subtle changes to the standard API, so people are usually just abstracting away from the standard, and there is hundreds of cases of libraries that abstract away.
http://code.google.com/p/qevent/
This is probably the best answer to your question. It makes browsers as standards-compliant as possible.
http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2007/03/yet-another/