IE9--the end of the line for browser sniffers?
in [JavaScript]
|
From: RobG on 24 May 2010 23:31 On May 19, 11:02 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From what I've heard of IE9, it sure seems to spell doom for Dojo, > ExtJs, YUI, etc. And jQuery too (at least to some extent). They all > have tons of rickety branches based on an "isIE" variable. Dojo, for > example, has hundreds of scripts, each with at least a few sniffs (some > have dozens) and they are all interdependent as hell (often one script > tries to work around the mistakes of others). Maybe it's the end of SharePoint too? | function GetInnerText(e) | { | if (browseris.safari) | return e.innerHTML; | else if (browseris.nav) | return e.textContent; | else | return e.innerText; | } It takes effort to screw up such a simple function so badly. The sniff for ".nav" is amusing too (my wrapping): | this.nav=((agt.indexOf('mozilla')!=-1)&& | ((agt.indexOf('spoofer')==-1) && | (agt.indexOf('compatible')==-1))); | this.nav6=this.nav && (this.major==5); | this.nav6up=this.nav && (this.major >=5); | this.nav7up=false; Love that last line. There are whole slabs of this stuff that are full of howlers, have a look at it sometime. And these guys write operating systems. -- Rob
From: David Mark on 25 May 2010 06:29 RobG wrote: > On May 19, 11:02 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> From what I've heard of IE9, it sure seems to spell doom for Dojo, >> ExtJs, YUI, etc. And jQuery too (at least to some extent). They all >> have tons of rickety branches based on an "isIE" variable. Dojo, for >> example, has hundreds of scripts, each with at least a few sniffs (some >> have dozens) and they are all interdependent as hell (often one script >> tries to work around the mistakes of others). > > Maybe it's the end of SharePoint too? > > | function GetInnerText(e) > | { > | if (browseris.safari) > | return e.innerHTML; Sure. In "Safari" (and I guess Chrome too), HTML and text are equivalent. :) > | else if (browseris.nav) > | return e.textContent; > | else > | return e.innerText; > | } > > > It takes effort to screw up such a simple function so badly. The sniff > for ".nav" is amusing too (my wrapping): Too much. :) > > | this.nav=((agt.indexOf('mozilla')!=-1)&& > | ((agt.indexOf('spoofer')==-1) && > | (agt.indexOf('compatible')==-1))); So if it has "mozilla", but *not* "compatible", then it must be compatible with Mozilla. This is the worst thing I've ever seen. I keep thinking I've seen the worst (e.g. Dojo was my most recent candidate) and then something like this comes alone. :) > | this.nav6=this.nav && (this.major==5); > | this.nav6up=this.nav && (this.major >=5); > | this.nav7up=false; > > Love that last line. Feeling 7-Up, I'm feeling 7-Up... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qAP58odLCs They are so fired. > > There are whole slabs of this stuff that are full of howlers, have a > look at it sometime. And these guys write operating systems. Poorly last I checked. Granted, I haven't seen their latest. It sure as hell wasn't my idea. :)
From: S.T. on 25 May 2010 16:20 On 5/19/2010 6:02 AM, David Mark wrote: > From what I've heard of IE9, it sure seems to spell doom for Dojo, > ExtJs, YUI, etc. And jQuery too (at least to some extent). FWIW, ran most aspects of my jQuery-heavy websites and extranet apps through the the IE9 Platform Preview and not seeing any issues whatsoever. Not even issues with jQueryUI library, which I'm still not sold on as release-ready but use in controlled environments sometimes. Dojo, YUI, ExtJS... don't know, don't care.
From: David Mark on 25 May 2010 19:16 On May 24, 12:08 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <b9bfa123-c3fb-4e0c-86ae-ef2cfa6548fc(a)m3 > 3g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, Sat, 22 May 2010 16:28:33, David Mark > <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> posted: > > > > > > >On May 22, 12:28 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> > >wrote: > >> >> I expect that it will still be possible to detect it as an IE by using > >> >> isIE = !+0.7.toFixed() > >> >> or > >> >> S = "1000000000000000000000000" ; > >> >> +(S+" ") != +(S+".0") ; > > >> >But what would you infer from that (other than the obvious?) > > >> That the browser is either IE, or a clone so faithful that it ought to > >> be treated as IE. > > >What does "treated as IE" mean? Assume that other observations you > >made today are going to be valid in the future? This is what I'm > >talking about. > > One can never trust the future. For example, I know of at least one > case in which a browser was 262-compliant, but did not in later versions > remain so. Nothing is guaranteed of course. The batteries could go dead in your smoke detectors, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use them. > > >> That Microsoft is careless. > > >Yes, that and a buck fifty will buy you a cup of coffee. > > Not round here. It would be of more than $1.50 quality; and they'd want > proper money too. What does that mean? > > >> I don't know whether you consider one of those, or something else, to be > >> obvious. > > >Why are you trying to sniff out IE in the first place? That's the > >rub. > > It should not be done in finished code, but it can be rather useful in > cross-browser testing : switch off one part that gives difficulty in IE > and continue on easier IE work, knowing that the expert on IE will be > back tomorrow or hoping that the newsgroup will be able to help. There are better ways to do that (e.g. conditional compilation). > > Never trust anyone here who types faster than he can think. > And how are you to gauge posters' typing speed?
From: Garrett Smith on 25 May 2010 20:09
On 5/25/2010 3:07 PM, David Mark wrote: > On May 25, 4:20 pm, "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> wrote: >> On 5/19/2010 6:02 AM, David Mark wrote: >> >>> From what I've heard of IE9, it sure seems to spell doom for Dojo, >>> ExtJs, YUI, etc. And jQuery too (at least to some extent). >> >> FWIW, ran most aspects of my jQuery-heavy websites and extranet apps >> through the the IE9 Platform Preview and not seeing any issues >> whatsoever. > > It's not worth a plugged nickel. jQuery doesn't use UA sniffing (and > still no thank you card from them). To whom might that "thank you" card be most appropriately delivered? |