window.name usage
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Cairo city sightseeing, city break, stopovers excursions, over day trips & overnight tours
Next: FAQ Topic - My element is named myselect[], how do I access it? (2010-06-09)
From: Andrew Poulos on 8 Jun 2010 18:18 At <url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_cookie > it claims that: "All current web browsers can store a fairly large amount of data (2-32 MB) via JavaScript using the DOM property window.name. This data can be used instead of session cookies and is also cross-domain. The technique can be coupled with JSON/JavaScript objects to store complex sets of session variables on the client side." Is it in fact a good idea to use window.name to store data? Andrew Poulos
From: David Mark on 8 Jun 2010 18:24 On Jun 8, 6:18 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > At <url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_cookie> it claims that: > > "All current web browsers can store a fairly large amount of data (2-32 > MB) via JavaScript using the DOM property window.name. This data can be > used instead of session cookies and is also cross-domain. The technique > can be coupled with JSON/JavaScript objects to store complex sets of > session variables on the client side." > > Is it in fact a good idea to use window.name to store data? > In a word, no.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 8 Jun 2010 18:24 Andrew Poulos wrote: > At <url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_cookie > it claims that: > > "All current web browsers can store a fairly large amount of data (2-32 > MB) via JavaScript using the DOM property window.name. This data can be > used instead of session cookies and is also cross-domain. The technique > can be coupled with JSON/JavaScript objects to store complex sets of > session variables on the client side." Someone should edit that nonsense out of the article. > Is it in fact a good idea to use window.name to store data? No. (And I'm sure you're old enough to find out why, not that it has not already been discussed here.) PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: David Mark on 8 Jun 2010 18:37 On Jun 8, 6:24 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > Andrew Poulos wrote: > > At <url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_cookie> it claims that: > > > "All current web browsers can store a fairly large amount of data (2-32 > > MB) via JavaScript using the DOM property window.name. This data can be > > used instead of session cookies and is also cross-domain. The technique > > can be coupled with JSON/JavaScript objects to store complex sets of > > session variables on the client side." > > Someone should edit that nonsense out of the article. Why bother? Some clod will just put it back in a minute later. Wikipedia's JS coverage is laughable. For example, the entry on jQuery reads like an infomercial. I once flagged it as such, but of course... http://adamcadre.ac/content/brown/
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 8 Jun 2010 18:42
David Mark wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Andrew Poulos wrote: >> > At <url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_cookie> it claims that: >> > >> > "All current web browsers can store a fairly large amount of data (2-32 >> > MB) via JavaScript using the DOM property window.name. This data can be >> > used instead of session cookies and is also cross-domain. The technique >> > can be coupled with JSON/JavaScript objects to store complex sets of >> > session variables on the client side." >> >> Someone should edit that nonsense out of the article. > > Why bother? Quality does not maintain itself. > Some clod will just put it back in a minute later. It is not too much of an effort to put an article one edited on one's watch list, and revert changes where and when necessary. There's also a built-in way to discuss about (suggested) edits. > Wikipedia's JS coverage is laughable. So it is certainly a good idea to try and improve it, as it has been done with many other topics before. > For example, the entry on jQuery reads like an infomercial. I once > flagged it as such, but of course... Perhaps you chose the wrong way again. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann |