Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #26391 > unrolled thread

simple error

Started byHaris Bogdanovich <haris.bogdanovic@gmail.com>
First post2014-12-28 18:12 +0100
Last post2014-12-29 08:09 +0200
Articles 5 on this page of 25 — 6 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  simple error Haris Bogdanovich <haris.bogdanovic@gmail.com> - 2014-12-28 18:12 +0100
    Re: simple error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-12-28 18:25 +0100
      Re: simple error "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2014-12-28 21:00 +0200
        Re: simple error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-12-28 21:32 +0100
          Re: simple error "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2014-12-28 23:56 +0200
    Re: simple error Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-12-28 18:46 +0000
      Re: simple error "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2014-12-28 21:13 +0200
        Re: simple error Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-12-28 23:19 +0000
          Re: simple error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-12-29 01:03 +0100
          Re: simple error "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-12-29 01:08 +0100
      Re: simple error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-12-28 20:13 +0100
        Re: simple error "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2014-12-28 22:30 +0200
          Re: simple error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-12-28 21:44 +0100
            Re: simple error "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2014-12-28 23:50 +0200
              Re: simple error "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-12-28 23:10 +0100
                Re: simple error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-12-29 03:10 +0100
                  Re: simple error "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-12-29 13:17 +0100
                    Re: simple error Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-12-29 12:30 +0000
                      Re: simple error "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2014-12-29 14:49 +0200
                    Re: simple error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-12-29 15:18 +0100
                Re: simple error "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2014-12-29 08:20 +0200
                  Re: simple error "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-12-29 12:36 +0100
                    Re: simple error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-12-29 15:40 +0100
              Re: simple error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-12-29 01:04 +0100
                Re: simple error "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2014-12-29 08:09 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#26411

From"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date2014-12-29 08:20 +0200
Message-ID<m7qrql$3no$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#26402
2014-12-29, 0:10, Christoph M. Becker wrote:

> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> The issue was the use of the code
>>
>> <td onclick='this.innerHTML = `X`;'>--</td>
>>
>> which was stated to work in Firefox.
>>
>> There is no HTML error in that code. The error is in JavaScript code.
>
> Obviously, not.  Otherwise it wouldn't work in Firefox' JavaScript
> engine as if the backticks have been quotes.

So are you saying that there is no error in code? And that if something 
works in an implementation it’s not an error?

Some future extension to the language might make it valid, and might get 
implemented, but that’s a different story.

What matters here is that the error*) is in JavaScript code, not in HTML 
code, contrary to what the troll’s message claimed

*) Just to save us from pointless philosophy of “error”, you can read 
“error” simply as my shorthand for “a deviation from the current 
definition of the language, preventing the construct from having the 
desired effect in most implementations”.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26414

From"Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de>
Date2014-12-29 12:36 +0100
Message-ID<m7rec6$fsf$1@solani.org>
In reply to#26411
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> 2014-12-29, 0:10, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> 
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>
>>> The issue was the use of the code
>>>
>>> <td onclick='this.innerHTML = `X`;'>--</td>
>>>
>>> which was stated to work in Firefox.
>>>
>>> There is no HTML error in that code. The error is in JavaScript code.
>>
>> Obviously, not.  Otherwise it wouldn't work in Firefox' JavaScript
>> engine as if the backticks have been quotes.
> 
> So are you saying that there is no error in code? And that if something
> works in an implementation it’s not an error?
> 
> Some future extension to the language might make it valid, and might get
> implemented, but that’s a different story.

It seems to be prudent to avoid talking about "the language" here.  Even
talking about JavaScript is misleading in this case, obviously.  Talking
about ECMAScript (implementations) clarifies things considerably,
because then we can look up the relevant part of the current
specification[1] (instead of speculating):

| A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to support
| program and regular expression syntax not described in this
| specification.

So the code above is not in error.

[1] <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-2>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26419

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2014-12-29 15:40 +0100
Message-ID<44374431.ADoVJf56ko@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#26414
Christoph M. Becker wrote:

> Talking about ECMAScript (implementations) clarifies things considerably,
> because then we can look up the relevant part of the current
> specification[1] (instead of speculating):
> 
> | A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to support
> | program and regular expression syntax not described in this
> | specification.
> 
> So the code above is not in error.

The above code would not be in error if it were considered code in/for an 
implementation of ECMAScript (in this case, Mozilla JavaScript), because 
that would still be a conforming implementation of ECMAScript (Editions 1 to 
5.1, excluding 4).

In this case, however, it is not in error because the Mozilla JavaScript 
version in question is an implementation, at least with regard to the syntax 
feature relevant here, of the latest working draft of ECMAScript Edition 6, 
which specifies that syntax instead.  (Voting on that draft to become a 
standard was planned for this year, but eventually postponed. [2])

ISTM that implementations can extend an Edition of the Specification in this 
way, which, if adopted, could lead to additional standard syntax in later 
Editions, was the secondary goal when this paragraph was introduced with the 
first Edition.  The primary goal was to reconcile the differences between 
Netscape JavaScript 1.1 and Microsoft JScript 1.0 (and other versions and 
implementations later), so that both existing, used languages could have 
syntax extensions but still be conforming implementations of ECMAScript.  
IOW, "standard followed practice" from the beginning.

> [1] <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-2>

[2] <http://wingolog.org/archives/2014/12/09/state-of-js-implementations-2014-edition>

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26407

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2014-12-29 01:04 +0100
Message-ID<1714327.Q2JTzWgtq2@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#26400
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> 2014-12-28, 22:44, Lahn wrote:
>> The HTML5 parsing algorithm at least, which I cited, states that if a
>> backtick (`) is parsed at this position, it constitutes a “Parse error”,
> 
> The issue was the use of the code
> 
> <td onclick='this.innerHTML = `X`;'>--</td>
> 
> which was stated to work in Firefox.

It was not clear what has been claimed.  The claim was:

| (`) might also work (it does in my firefox at least).

Which referred to:

| Use double quotes (") for one of the strings. 

Therefore, it is a fallacy to state that what you have assumed is the only 
possible valid interpretation.

That said, see my other followup for the proper explanation.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26410

From"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date2014-12-29 08:09 +0200
Message-ID<m7qr58$25h$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#26407
2014-12-29, 2:04, Lahn wrote:

> It was not clear what has been claimed.

It was to those who checked the facts.

> The claim was:
>
> | (`) might also work (it does in my firefox at least).
>
> Which referred to:
>
> | Use double quotes (") for one of the strings.
>
> Therefore, it is a fallacy to state that what you have assumed is the only
> possible valid interpretation.

The fallacy is entirely on your side: you ignored that part “it does in 
my firefox at least”.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web