Jump to content

Jack McKalling

Members
  • Posts

    1,606
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Languages
    PHP, (x)Html, CSS, JavaScript, XML, MySQL, C#, Java, RegExp

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Jack McKalling's Achievements

Dedicated Member

Dedicated Member (4/7)

2

Reputation

  1. The javascript reference contains pages for all object types, like Array, Boolean, Date, Math, String. But not Object itself. There is a page for "Global" properties and functions, "Operators" and "Statements", but things like Object.create(), Object.values(), Object.keys() etc aren't on any of those pages either. Are these methods not documented because of lack of support on W3Schools for the relevant javascript version, or can Object be added to the reference pages? I'd like to see Object documented here, and not need to go to the MDN. Thanks for letting me know *Edit: I phrased it as a question, but it's really a suggestion, isn't it.
  2. For some reason the W3Schools website is not reachable in IE8. It simply gives a direct HTTP error and I cannot view any page. However the forum works just fine, but that is on a different domain anyway. Why is this? Is this a decision from W3S, to kick browsers that are too old, or is it some browser setting I myself overlooked? Because I find it very weird that W3S, who themselves are teaching how to be cross-browser, are not even compatible at all with this one. I was just trying to figure out whether I should be using the "lightgrey" or "lightgray" colourname, and I know IE8 is the browser that is specific on the difference, but I sadly cannot open this w3schools page about it in that browser because of this, or even any w3s page at all. I'm not necessarily asking for W3S to be compatible with IE8 if this is intended behavior, I know the browser is anciently old and I'm a dinosaur still trying to use it these days, but I just want to know why it is because this is strange. Thanks for your help.
  3. As a reaction on the use of conditional comments, in my opinion they are not "cross-browser", strictly seen. They just enable the use of non cross-browser code, to work only in a certain browser or in all others.I try to make use of a real cross-browser sollution instead myself, if I may say. This is what makes it hard though, some things just cannot be done, and I have a few examples too. Right now again I'm confronted as a matter of fact. Very often one browser, specifically Internet Explorer, gets shouted and sweared at..
  4. Then, I might understand the delay or whatever choice made not to add a Java tutorial. But could it then not be easier to add an OOP tutorial rather than Java, C++ or any other language C-based? Many C-based languages are OOP, and when one language is Object Oriented, you have seen them all. Although that is what I experienced when I started learning Java at school (2 weeks, done) Now it got me developing games, without an indepth study of the language or library, I only know the technique the language is buildt on, the basics of OOP, and with that, I can program in Java already. I do not see any reason choosing against adding a tutorial that instructs to simplify any study in Java or OOP for that matter
  5. I agree on that. I too would like a tutorial including helpful information about the programming language Java, and I do not think it should be left because it is not popular enough or something like that. Many people would want to know how they make a Java applet, ie. embedded in a webpage. But just like PHP, a tutorial (containing or about) Java would not mean the server should be prepared to actually run it; like in the PHP tutorial, it would be a security risk to let people run the server-side language. I don't specifically mean Java may experience security risks that way, but similarly anyway, it does not actually need a try-it editor.In the PHP tutorial there is no editor either, we complain, yes, but I understand why and accept it should better get a workaround to overcome the risk, rather than a try-it editor with risks whatsoever. However, back to Java, I do not think it will be easy to spend time on a Java tutorial or one like "Other (...) languages" because it is not that small and could become quite complex. But as it could be helpful for the programmers already using it, as well as educational for the ones new to the language, it would be an asset to the site.Besides, even though Java itself is seen as server-side, I still do not think it is. I agree it is compiled code, but what defines server-side? To let it actually run on a server, or to be prepared at the server and run in the client? What does this mean in relation to the reason why not to add a tutorial about Java?
  6. Actually there is a MIME-types list on W3Schools. Just not in that tutorial :)See this list: http://www.w3schools.com/media/media_mimeref.asp (Media Tutorial)You're right about the "file" name of the file-input, indeed confusing. I would choose "userfile" or so.
  7. Hello,Even though this thread is a little old, it may be of use to tell that the Deprecated page has greatly been improved by me.For starters, it has been implemented in my website, so you are able to navigate back and forth to my other webpages (notice only this page is English).Second, the tables are now clickable spoilers. You can open and close them both, and they are scollable inside.I manage the webpage still, has anyone some hard ideas, I would gladly reply to it and adjust it. Furthermore, the page will indefinately stay supported, so everyone can make use of it. I will stay improving it every now and then, to add functionality that is currently in development (for the website). Any ideas for that is welcome, like spelling-, grammar- and design fix ideas are too.Note: no longer is this account owned by Dan The Prof, but me, Jack McKalling. I can't recon if I mentioned that earlier.My condolances go out to him, he was an honest and dear friend.Everything online he managed I have taken over, trying to move on like he wanted me to.
  8. That will come, that will come When I am ready for it and if it is possible the way I want it, the site will be Dutch as well as English You might even like it I have lots of good stuff there to be found, especially for programmers like us.. Online editors for text, files, databases, text converting forms, upload scripts, all sharable Though it is all in an early stage. This page for deprecated items is only a small 'gift' for the site, as it consists of lots of more great tools that help developement.
  9. I specificially want the areas to be only vertical scrollable, so I used overflow-y :)It did not come to me to specify -x too for compatibility, I will from now on.So, it looks great ? Would you now want to go back to the .htm version again?
  10. It may have also been the "overflow-y:scroll" that did not work. Maybe browsers support "overflow" rather than overflow-x/overflow-y.Now it is set to overflow:auto. Both IE and FF still render it correctly, and Opera? (I only have Opera installed at my work, not here..)
  11. I see.. could you take a look in IE or FF, to see how it should look like?While the height property is deliberately not equal to its parent, though I defined "overflow:scroll", so it should react as a scrollable area, just as in IE and FF However, As I see form your screen, I take it Opera doesn't support this "overflow"? Not sure. Should
  12. I know, in FireFox it is not as good as it was intended either.. But I had to put the tables in clickable areas, as my site does not want horizontal nor vertical scrollbars on any page.I am working on it, at least in Internet Explorer it shows correctly. The problem is the menu, it is placed by style, not by a table, so anything that gets next to it, well, you see what happens. There must be a sollution though, and I will find it no worry [*Edit:]Hows Opera viewing it now? Placed the areas in a stupid table. IE as well as FF show it correctly now...
  13. The topic has gone under indeed, may there not be an extra sticky topic in the HTML forums?My page is still available, at a new location though, read above post. The old location now shows a redirect message.As the page is now connected to my website, and takes part of the template, you can now navigate to my website from it and back again.Please update your favorites if desired! This is one-time only, with php I can support any future redirects at the server myself.
  14. Ah, ok, that figures.My sollution doesn't have the problem anymore, before your reply I did not exactly know why.
  15. I don't know either.However, I found a way to circumvent this problem, by placing the childnodes that I want it to count, in a container div.And then I stumbled upon another problem, it wasn't cross-browser! FireFox then overtook saying there were too much childnodes than I knew there were.Now I *think* I know what it was all about.Lovely FireFox comes with this DOM inspector, and I found out it reads some textnodes besides the original element nodes. That must have been the reason in IE too! I hope so...Before: <div id="container"> <div>head</div> <div>body1</div> <div>body2</div> <div>body3</div> <div>foot</div></div> bodyslength = document.getElementById("container").childNodes.length-2; Sollution: <div id="container"> <div>head</div> <div id="containerbody"> <div>body1</div> <div>body2</div> <div>body3</div> </div> <div>foot</div></div> bodyslength = document.getElementById("containerbody").getElementsByTagName("div").length; In other words, narrow the target, and explicitely name the target names instead of letting it count them.This last code works in both IE and FF. I have been testing my programming in FF too for some time now, very smart that is.
×
×
  • Create New...