On 13 May 2008, at 10:32, Robin Vickery wrote:
2008/5/13 Stut <stuttle@xxxxxxxxx>:
On 13 May 2008, at 09:04, Peter Ford wrote:
I think the onus is on the coders of Urchin to document how to avoid
errors when Javascript is disabled, not the site developer who uses
it.
Just to repeat a point I made yesterday which was clearly either
misunderstood or ignored... Urchin *will not* cause Javascript
errors if
Javascript is disabled. Odd though it may seem, it's actually not
possible
to write Javascript code that will cause Javascript errors if
Javascript is
disabled.
If you choose to use an addon that disables some Javascript but not
all of
it you need to be willing to live with the errors that may cause.
While I completely agree with everything you say there, I do think
there is a
point to the other side side of the argument as well; It *is* sloppy
practice to
assume that some resource has already been initialised without
checking,
especially when you're relying on a third-party script.
I agree to a certain extend, but the Javascript spec specifies that
it's executed in the order it's found on the page. So if you include
an external file before calling the code it contains it's perfectly
acceptable to assume that code has already been included, parsed and
is available to you. Given that fact, checking for the existence of
such things is a waste of CPU cycles, something that Javascript
developers should never assume are available in abundance.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
