Re: JS 1.7 support: Who has it, etc.?
- From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 23:12:39 +0200
[trimmed attribution novel]
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
JScript 5.7 for Windows XP (and probably 5.8 for Vista and Windows
Server 2008) obviously exist, however I have yet to check if there are
any differences to JScript 5.6 or if the increase in version is only
attributed to them being introduced with different OS versions.
JScript 5.7 for IE7 does exists but so far it updates 5.6 only on Vista
installation of IE7 unless someone does manual jscript.dll upgrade.
It exists here on my *Windows XP* SP 2 system, presumably since I updated it
to IE 7.0. Otherwise I have only let the latest security fixes installed,
It has a noticeably upgraded gc mechanics to better handle intensive
memory usage in long running applications. See Eric Lippert blog at
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/09/17/53038.aspx and Paul
Dempsey explanations on 5.7 in blog's comments. Nothing explicit what you
could determine from the outside of the box: just some solutions should
start using lesser runtime memory.
That would be good to know, thanks.
industry standard de facto.
Your regular nonsense again.
Other products (i.e. those not using Trident or Gecko as layout engine) do
implementation. It's a fact that you refuse to accept because it does not
fit into your tiny fantasy world.
1.5 but ECMAScript (ECMA-262) Edition 3 or ISO/IEC 16262:2002.
This newsgroup is for all ECMAScript implementations unless there exists a
special newsgroup for a specification within the Big 8. That its charter
is somewhat outdated does not change the nature of the discussions we have
here, and the reason why we do.
The [1,2,] issue or the named function within an expression and a dozen
of similar discrepancies are way not enough to see two different
languages here. There are much more bigger differences between some C+ +
or Java implementations. Such issues still should be mentioned when they
are important but otherwise it is one language we are programming on.
I suggest you visit the ECMAScript Support Matrix site and get yourself
informed. If you don't trust that you may also look it up in the MSDN
Library (or ask Eric Lippert, but I doubt he'll be pleased to endure your
Mozilla Foundation proprietary extensions of the base 1.5
backed up by the Specifications' Conformance sections.
like having new type of "comments" <? ... ?> ;-) var foo = "foo"; <?
foobar ?> alert(foo); // no problem
Not true. It is no problem if the `<?' is followed by text that makes it
a a processing instruction. It is a SyntaxError ("invalid XML markup")
Yes, I am aware of the XML grounds of this bizarrity
Apparently you are not aware that this is not only an allowed, but also a
specified extension of ECMA-262, namely ECMA-357 / ISO/IEC 22537:2006
"ECMAScript for XML" (E4X).
but I mean can you take such source code w/o modifications anywhere
outside of most modern Gecko builds?
No, I don't think you can. That is what it makes a language of its own.
If only you would finally see that ...
Not all feature are backward compatible with 1.5, but any 1.5-Not true either, Often Wrong.
compliant program will run under 1.6 or 1.7 So overall you don't need
to have any headache at all with versions unless you want to use some
of new Gecko-specific features.
Sometimes wrong, mostly right.
And of what do you dream at night?
Do not mix DOM interfaces' cross- browser
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
- Prev by Date: SV: SV: SV: SV: Moving a string from client to server (JS -> ASPX)
- Next by Date: Re: JS 1.7 support: Who has it, etc.?
- Previous by thread: Re: JS 1.7 support: Who has it, etc.?
- Next by thread: Re: JS 1.7 support: Who has it, etc.?