From: SAM on
MC a �crit :
> Sam,
>
> We support IE and Firefox only. Since this is a business environment and not
> consumer, we can dictate that. We also recommend IE7 as preferred since we
> have several USB tools that have plugins to IE. We do try to validate W3C as
> much as possible.

try my demo with Firefox (Fx does as Opera or Safari)
and try it too with IE (any of them > 5)

> MC
> PS for the code to work, you need to finish out the sendArchive function
> with ajax.

I will finish anything.

Functions type Ajax are on the Net :
<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/AJAX:Getting_Started>
<http://jibbering.com/2002/4/httprequest.html>
<http://www.ajaxtoolbox.com/>
<http://ajaxpatterns.org/Ajax_Examples>

etc

--
sm


From: Evertjan. on
MC wrote on 17 jun 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Sam,

[please always quote on usenet, this is not email, MC]

> We support IE and Firefox only. Since this is a business environment
> and not consumer, we can dictate that. We also recommend IE7 as
> preferred since we have several USB tools that have plugins to IE. We
> do try to validate W3C as much as possible.
>
> So Opera, Safari, etc are just not issues...out of over 2000 business
> users we have there is not one Mac. The fact that the code is
> non-standard is a non-issue.

And the judge will just believe your dictate?

When you tell him you are showing a serverside reconstruction of what you
believe to have been on the users monitor, because you dictated something
to the defending party, and that that amounts to legal proof, he will have
a fit laughing.

Especially if the defence gets hold of this NG thread.

> MC
> PS for the code to work, you need to finish out the sendArchive
> function with ajax.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
From: MC on
I thought this was a thread about getting client html sent back to the
server. I don't give a rats fat behind about your legal opinion as it
doesn't hold water here. Fact is, 'reasonable' and 'consistent' are key
ideals of the law here....not perfection. Guess we are just not as good as
you.

MC


From: Evertjan. on
MC wrote on 17 jun 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

> I thought this was a thread about getting client html sent back to the
> server. I don't give a rats fat behind about your legal opinion as it
> doesn't hold water here. Fact is, 'reasonable' and 'consistent' are
> key ideals of the law here....not perfection. Guess we are just not as
> good as you.
>

To whom and to what are you responding?

You seem to have a lot to learn about usenet posting.

You seem angry, why? And at whom?

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
From: MC on

"Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort(a)interxnl.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AC12CBAD96Beejj99(a)194.109.133.242...
> MC wrote on 17 jun 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> I thought this was a thread about getting client html sent back to the
>> server. I don't give a rats fat behind about your legal opinion as it
>> doesn't hold water here. Fact is, 'reasonable' and 'consistent' are
>> key ideals of the law here....not perfection. Guess we are just not as
>> good as you.
>>
>
> To whom and to what are you responding?
>
> You seem to have a lot to learn about usenet posting.
>
> You seem angry, why? And at whom?
>
> --
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

At whom???
I'm not angry. Frustrated maybe. Instead of helping, you are concerned about
criticizing my business. I didn't ask for business help, I asked for a how
to with javascript. Instead of help, I got a ranting about legal issues,
browsers, why something shouldn't be done, and rudeness. It seems that you
think its ok to usenet post garbage like this. I hope to not learn any of
your behaviors about usenet posting. It seems that you are trolling more
than helping and having fun doing it. I don't know why, as I know from other
posts that you are knowledgeable about javascript.

MC