Author |
Message |
verto
Senior WebHelper
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 220
Location: Cambridge MA USA
|
Posted:
Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:25 pm (21 years, 9 months ago) |
|
As far as I can tell, both of the two choices below answered a question equally well in a JavaScript certification test I just took.
JavaScript Certification question wrote: | "What code [will] force the full frameset to show when a page
that is part of a frameset is loaded?" |
a.
if(location==top.location)
top.location.href="frameset2.html"
b.
if(top.location==self.location)
top.location.href="frameset2.html"
[There were also a few other more obviously bogus choices.]
In my understanding, 'self' refers to the global 'window' object, and so 'self.location' would be equivalent to 'location.' I also don't see how the ordering in the condition would have an effect.
I also tried making and testing a document in MSIE 6.0 for Win NT, and both conditions seemed to function equally well
Can you see something I'm missing here? I'm just not enough of a whiz at JavaScript to know:
Does one of them answer the question better than the other?
Could i be missing a browser incompatibility issue? |
________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>
GENERAL DISCLAIMER:This disclaimer may be void where null in all cases unless explicitly not unprohibited or (p)re-exclusively assigned by sufficient presedimentation on behalf of every non-interested party to wit (or so it was said).
:::
.: :. . : :....: :.: .: :. verto .: :. . : :....: :.: .: :. |
|
|
|
Daniel
Team Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2002
Posts: 2564
|
Posted:
Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:14 pm (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
I can't vote for more than one option A lot of those answer the question |
________________________________
|
|
|
|
Justin
4WebHelp Addict
Joined: 07 Jan 2002
Posts: 1060
|
Posted:
Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:19 pm (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
Netscape 4 - For Obvious Reasons! |
|
|
|
|
Daniel
Team Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2002
Posts: 2564
|
Posted:
Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:21 pm (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
I was thinking of voting for NS4, but there are others I'd like to vote for too I still haven't voted yet |
________________________________
|
|
|
|
Justin
4WebHelp Addict
Joined: 07 Jan 2002
Posts: 1060
|
Posted:
Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:25 pm (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
Lynx has to be pretty incompatible because it's text only, and as for AOL, strictly it's just a skinned IE right? but I would never use AOL myself, so I wouldn't really know. |
|
|
|
|
Daniel
Team Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2002
Posts: 2564
|
Posted:
Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:27 pm (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
It might be a skinned IE now, but I'm not sure it always was... It used to be a bit crappy, IMO (don't know what it's like now)... I used AOL for a month a couple of years ago, and couldn't stand it (do you blame me?) The browser was useless, everything was slow, and their email interface was featureless (and it was the only one you could use) |
________________________________
|
|
|
|
Justin
4WebHelp Addict
Joined: 07 Jan 2002
Posts: 1060
|
Posted:
Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:30 pm (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
And their promotional material is annoying too, I get one CD a week at least, they've even launched their own Official Monthly Magazine in the shops over here now, their email is still useless from what I've seen of it, and like you say, you didn't have an option to use other interfaces for email.
It still is crappy, but many newbies use it, I feel sorry for them actually, someone in this country got so annoyed that the punched the woman that advertises AOL on TV! |
|
|
|
|
verto
Senior WebHelper
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 220
Location: Cambridge MA USA
|
Posted:
Mon Sep 30, 2002 9:54 pm (21 years, 6 months ago) |
|
I haven't used AOL's browser since back in '96 I think it was. Back then it was a version behind MSIE, essentially being v. 2 while IE was at v. 3, so it was relatively slow and feature-poor as well.
Today my least favorite browser of the moment is probably NS 4.x for the Mac. I'm rebuilding an alternate page I had that was supposed to cover NS 4.x on both platforms. Problem was that not only does it look way different on the Mac, but the JavaScript didn't work either. I'm fairly sure I've discovered at least two serious bugs in this browser that I'd never heard about before.
One bug is that is doesn't seem to support UTF-8 character encoding (less common than Latin-1), so on very many major sites, the CSS settings for 'font-family' are ignored (all your text shows up in Times Roman or whatever the default font is). Even the W3C's site doesn't work in it.
The other bug seems to be related to how many JavaScript sections are included in the <head> section.
BTW, if anyone else has run into either of these before, I'd be interested to hear more about them.
Anyway, I'm hoping there won't be more than a couple more to find before I can move on to a project that's more fun or rewarding than this. |
________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>
GENERAL DISCLAIMER:This disclaimer may be void where null in all cases unless explicitly not unprohibited or (p)re-exclusively assigned by sufficient presedimentation on behalf of every non-interested party to wit (or so it was said).
:::
.: :. . : :....: :.: .: :. verto .: :. . : :....: :.: .: :. |
|
|
|
|
Page generation time: 0.222491 seconds :: 20 queries executed :: All Times are GMT
Powered by
phpBB 2.0
© 2001, 2002 phpBB Group :: Based on an FI Theme