Instantiating XHR (Code Worth Recommending Project)

#11

In comp.lang.javascript message <476522B9.4060501 (AT) PointedEars (DOT) de>, Sun,
16 Dec 2007 14:06:01, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars (AT) web (DOT) de>
posted:

Quote:

Not using Google's faulty Web interface, unless one temporarily has to,
might be the solution to this problem. Besides the mentioned bug, for
example, your signature is broken; it has to be delimited with "-- "
(followed by CRLF), and it is delimited with "--" (followed by CRLF).

Since you evidently do not yourself understand how a signature should be
constructed, as you have repeatedly been told, you are once again
demonstrating your truly obnoxious personality.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

#12

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Quote:

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] posted:
Not using Google's faulty Web interface, unless one temporarily has to,
might be the solution to this problem. Besides the mentioned bug, for
example, your signature is broken; it has to be delimited with "-- "
(followed by CRLF), and it is delimited with "--" (followed by CRLF).

Since you evidently do not yourself understand how a signature should be
constructed, as you have repeatedly been told, you are once again
demonstrating your truly obnoxious personality.

I have explained what is technically required for a signature as it is
understood for Usenet messages and by properly working newsreader software,
which is not met here. Anything else follows merely from your ongoing
misinterpretation of recommendations and even Internet drafts as standards:

As long as I have a line in my posting containing only "-- " (+CLRF), what
follows qualifies as a signature; it is a signature that follows universally
accepted Usenet guidelines if it is not more than four lines. What is above
that delimiter is _not_ part of the signature, and as such it is only by its
format, and not by its content, subject of any (quasi-)standard. (And that
format as defined in RFC1036 was obeyed.)

To be precise, if I do not want to make my (nick)name-signature part of the
signature as that is technically understood (for example, in order to keep
the signature short!), I am absolutely free to do so, and removing it is for
readers not any harder than snipping any other part of any other posting.

And if I do not want to put contact information in my signature but a
randomly selected text instead, like evidently a number of other Usenet
participants, many of them being regulars, do, I am absolutely free to do
so, even though I would not follow the evidently rather outdated
corresponding recommendation in RFC1855, then.

If you want to bother someone about their postings not conforming to
(quasi-)standards, why don't you start with bothering the large number of
incompetent anti-social people who help to break the medium as a means of
building a social network by using non-existing e-mail addresses in address
headers, a clear violation of RFC1036 and STD11 (obsoleted by RFC2822)?

EOD

PointedEars
--
"Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't
prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.)"
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>

#13

On Dec 16, 7:47 am, VK <schools_r... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On Dec 16, 4:06 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de
wrote:

Not using Google's faulty Web interface, unless one temporarily has to,
might be the solution to this problem.

Or using a descent NNTP server for posting: in my memory this is the
first time ever in Google Groups the title is displayed but no body.
Also my free two free NNTP servers I am using as a reserve one missed
the post completely, other reported the same header w/o body. Someone
is playing hard with message headers I guess (?)

Anyway I have gotten the post over developersdex mirror:http://www.developersdex.com/asp/mes...2978&r=6080012

Thanks.

Thomas wrote that "'Microsoft.XMLHTTP' selects the latest available
XMLHTTP version
installed on the client system." and I believe that is not true based
on things I've been reading lately. Can Thomas' claim be
substantiated?

--
Peter
Code Worth Recommending Project
http://cljs.michaux.ca/

#14

Peter Michaux wrote:

Quote:

Thomas wrote that "'Microsoft.XMLHTTP' selects the latest available
XMLHTTP version installed on the client system." and I believe that
is not true based on things I've been reading lately.

Without you naming then things you are referring to, I may as well
say I didn't believe you either. That's a great style of discussion,
isn't it?

Quote:

Can Thomas' claim be substantiated?

Create the object, check the properties it provides and cross-check
with the version information for that property in the MSDN Library.

PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16

#15

On Dec 16, 4:53 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de>
wrote:

Quote:

Peter Michaux wrote:
Thomas wrote that "'Microsoft.XMLHTTP' selects the latest available
XMLHTTP version installed on the client system." and I believe that
is not true based on things I've been reading lately.

Without you naming then things you are referring to, I may as well
say I didn't believe you either. That's a great style of discussion,
isn't it?

It isn't optimal.

Quote:

Can Thomas' claim be substantiated?

Create the object, check the properties it provides and cross-check
with the version information for that property in the MSDN Library.

Is there Microsoft documentation to substantiate your claim? I have
not seen any and I have been reading about this on the Microsoft site.
The only thing I've seen is in the XML blog post link I posted in the
first post of this thread. It says that if MSXML3.dll (or whatever it
is called) is installed then Microsoft.XMLHTTP will use it. I have not
seen that if MSXML6.dll (or whatever it is called) is installed that
Microsoft.XMLHTTP should be used.

--
Peter
Code Worth Recommending Project
http://cljs.michaux.ca/

#16

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 12/16/2007 7:44 PM:

Quote:

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] posted:
Not using Google's faulty Web interface, unless one temporarily has to,
might be the solution to this problem. Besides the mentioned bug, for
example, your signature is broken; it has to be delimited with "-- "
(followed by CRLF), and it is delimited with "--" (followed by CRLF).
Since you evidently do not yourself understand how a signature should be
constructed, as you have repeatedly been told, you are once again
demonstrating your truly obnoxious personality.

I have explained what is technically required for a signature as it is
understood for Usenet messages and by properly working newsreader software,
which is not met here.

Your problem is you don't comprehend what constitutes a "signature".

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

#17

Peter Michaux said the following on 12/16/2007 7:49 PM:

Quote:

On Dec 16, 7:47 am, VK <schools_r... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:06 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de
wrote:

Not using Google's faulty Web interface, unless one temporarily has to,
might be the solution to this problem.
Or using a descent NNTP server for posting: in my memory this is the
first time ever in Google Groups the title is displayed but no body.
Also my free two free NNTP servers I am using as a reserve one missed
the post completely, other reported the same header w/o body. Someone
is playing hard with message headers I guess (?)

Anyway I have gotten the post over developersdex mirror:http://www.developersdex.com/asp/mes...2978&r=6080012

Thanks.

Thomas wrote that "'Microsoft.XMLHTTP' selects the latest available
XMLHTTP version installed on the client system." and I believe that
is not true based on things I've been reading lately.

Can you give URL's to what you have been reading lately?

Quote:

Can Thomas' claim be substantiated?

Yes. From your own URL in fact:

<quote cite="http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/35742>

The version independent program id for an XML HTTP request object is
Microsoft.XMLHTTP
thus
var httpRequest = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
creates an XML HTTP request object in IE 5 or later.

Which actual MSXML version such a program id is bound to depends on the
MSXML version(s) installed and even on the mode (side-by-side or replace
mode) a version is installed in.
</quote>

Until I see something that proves Martin wrong, I believe what he writes
- unconditionally.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

#18

Peter Michaux said the following on 12/16/2007 8:52 PM:

Quote:

On Dec 16, 4:53 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de
wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
Thomas wrote that "'Microsoft.XMLHTTP' selects the latest available
XMLHTTP version installed on the client system." and I believe that
is not true based on things I've been reading lately.
Without you naming then things you are referring to, I may as well
say I didn't believe you either. That's a great style of discussion,
isn't it?

It isn't optimal.

Can Thomas' claim be substantiated?
Create the object, check the properties it provides and cross-check
with the version information for that property in the MSDN Library.

Is there Microsoft documentation to substantiate your claim? I have
not seen any and I have been reading about this on the Microsoft site.
The only thing I've seen is in the XML blog post link I posted in the
first post of this thread. It says that if MSXML3.dll (or whatever it
is called) is installed then Microsoft.XMLHTTP will use it. I have not
seen that if MSXML6.dll (or whatever it is called) is installed that
Microsoft.XMLHTTP should be used.

new ActiveXObject("MSXML2.XMLHTTP");

Will use whatever the latest version the user has installed. If you
specify a version, then it will only support what that version had in it.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - ttp://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

#19

On Dec 16, 6:04 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Peter Michaux said the following on 12/16/2007 7:49 PM:

On Dec 16, 7:47 am, VK <schools_r... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:06 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de
wrote:

Not using Google's faulty Web interface, unless one temporarily has to,
might be the solution to this problem.
Or using a descent NNTP server for posting: in my memory this is the
first time ever in Google Groups the title is displayed but no body.
Also my free two free NNTP servers I am using as a reserve one missed
the post completely, other reported the same header w/o body. Someone
is playing hard with message headers I guess (?)

Anyway I have gotten the post over developersdex mirror:http://www.developersdex.com/asp/mes...2978&r=6080012

Thanks.

Thomas wrote that "'Microsoft.XMLHTTP' selects the latest available
XMLHTTP version installed on the client system." and I believe that
is not true based on things I've been reading lately.

Can you give URL's to what you have been reading lately?

The only links I still have are the ones I posted

Quote:

Can Thomas' claim be substantiated?

Yes. From your own URL in fact:

quote cite="http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/35742

The version independent program id for an XML HTTP request object is
Microsoft.XMLHTTP
thus
var httpRequest = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
creates an XML HTTP request object in IE 5 or later.

Which actual MSXML version such a program id is bound to depends on the
MSXML version(s) installed and even on the mode (side-by-side or replace
mode) a version is installed in.
/quote

Until I see something that proves Martin wrong, I believe what he writes
- unconditionally.

<quote site="http://blogs.msdn.com/xmlteam/archive/2006/10/23/using-
the-right-version-of-msxml-in-internet-explorer.aspx">
#
Version Independent ProgIDs - There's a lot of confusion around the
"version-independent" ProgID for MSXML. The version-independent
ProgID is always bound to MSXML 3 (a lot of people think it picks up
the latest MSXML that is on the box). This means the version
independent ProgID and the "3.0" ProgIDs will return the same object.
For example both statements in the following code will return an MSXML
3 DOMDocument:

var xmlDOM = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.DOMDocument.3.0')

and

var xmlDOM = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.DOMDocument')

</quote>

Confusing, eh?

--
Peter
Code Worth Recommending Project
http://cljs.michaux.ca/

#20

Peter Michaux said the following on 12/16/2007 10:20 PM:

Quote:

On Dec 16, 6:04 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:
Peter Michaux said the following on 12/16/2007 7:49 PM:

On Dec 16, 7:47 am, VK <schools_r... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:06 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de
wrote:
Not using Google's faulty Web interface, unless one temporarily has to,
might be the solution to this problem.
Or using a descent NNTP server for posting: in my memory this is the
first time ever in Google Groups the title is displayed but no body.
Also my free two free NNTP servers I am using as a reserve one missed
the post completely, other reported the same header w/o body. Someone
is playing hard with message headers I guess (?)
Anyway I have gotten the post over developersdex mirror:http://www.developersdex.com/asp/mes...2978&r=6080012
Thanks.
Thomas wrote that "'Microsoft.XMLHTTP' selects the latest available
XMLHTTP version installed on the client system." and I believe that
is not true based on things I've been reading lately.
Can you give URL's to what you have been reading lately?

The only links I still have are the ones I posted

Can Thomas' claim be substantiated?
Yes. From your own URL in fact:

quote cite="http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/35742

The version independent program id for an XML HTTP request object is
Microsoft.XMLHTTP
thus
var httpRequest = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
creates an XML HTTP request object in IE 5 or later.

Which actual MSXML version such a program id is bound to depends on the
MSXML version(s) installed and even on the mode (side-by-side or replace
mode) a version is installed in.
/quote

Until I see something that proves Martin wrong, I believe what he writes
- unconditionally.

quote site="http://blogs.msdn.com/xmlteam/archive/2006/10/23/using-
the-right-version-of-msxml-in-internet-explorer.aspx"
#
Version Independent ProgIDs - There's a lot of confusion around the
"version-independent" ProgID for MSXML. The version-independent
ProgID is always bound to MSXML 3 (a lot of people think it picks up
the latest MSXML that is on the box). This means the version
independent ProgID and the "3.0" ProgIDs will return the same object.
For example both statements in the following code will return an MSXML
3 DOMDocument:

var xmlDOM = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.DOMDocument.3.0')

and

var xmlDOM = new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.DOMDocument')

/quote

Confusing, eh?

I read that part as well. It is referring to two different things
though. DOMDocument versus XMLHTTP. Martin could come closer to telling
you the difference in the two than I can.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/