- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:18:52 +0100
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > I don't personally agree that document.X implies anyelement.X and you > > I'm testing Node.X. Document and anyelement are both Nodes. No, if it was a DOM conformant UA, you would be, however it's highly likely not to be, if it was, there'd be no point checking any of it. > > also need to check parentNode is an object before calling removeChild > > Not in this case, since the object is guarenteed to be in the tree. No it's not! you're again assuming that a particular DOM method exists based on no evidence what so ever, this is not object detection. > > You don't check for support of Number.toFixed > > That's standard ECMAScript. It's standard ECMAScript Edition 3.0, only a subset of browsers even attempt to support this, and advanced browsers have seperated the script version from the browser version, so you can anything there. > > You don't check for native support of a datetime control. > > Yes, I do. So it fails in FireFox 0.8 for example, which incorrectly assumes datetime support. Jim.
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 03:18:52 UTC