Kanagax, agree with you about "using (or not) frames" being irrelevant if the is objective is met. I was talking about reducing a bit the code size were possible, feature testing is more costly in byte size.
Please tell me how a 3d party is going to create problem with those testing I am really interested into improve them if possible. You see, the "document.fileSize" property in IE is read-only, and it is of a type the user cannot create himself that I know, but would be very interested in how the user could create a variable of type "unknown", especially how to I create an "unknown" variable in FF / Opera / Webkit / Konqueror or mobile web browsers ??? Diego On 13 Gen, 15:10, kangax <kan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 13, 8:11 am, Diego Perini <diego.per...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Kangax, > > you have convinced me about the goodness of feature testing. Now > > convince yourself about the goodness of: > > > // detect IE any version from IE to IE8 > > IE = typeof document.fileSize != 'undefined', > > > I don't understand how conditional comments or "userAgent" parsing can > > be better than the above for IE. Look at bug #3169 as an example... > > No, it's not better. I never said it was ; ) > > > > > In fact the above will have worked from IE4 and up to todays IE7 / > > IE8, while we have seen the "userAgent" parsing changing quite a lot > > of time in the course of the past years. You see with "userAgent" > > parsing/sniffing libraries must be updated (or at least checked/ > > tweaked) for each new version of the browser and that is a very bad > > practice. > > Ok, so your argument is that proper object inference does not require > as much maintenance as `userAgent` sniffing does. That's a valid > point, of course. It still doesn't make such check any *more* reliable > than `userAgent` sniffing in my opinion - there's a chance of false > positives either with 3rd party code or with future changes. > > > > > I repeat, this is useful when feature testing is requiring to much > > code, realize that the above test will cover more than 50% of your > > current CFT tests. Nearly all bugs are IE related, few are Opera or > > Konqueror as you already noticed. > > > Kangax, I really like your CFT and believe it is the way to go, but I > > don't need to open an iframe each time I need to know if a method will > > work on IE, that's too much for my taste and probably for others too. > > I don't see how "using (or not) frames" is relevant here. I only > wanted to stress the fact that object inference is hardly a better > alternative to UA parsing. Nevertheless, it does have its uses, of > course. > > > > > Diego > > [...] > > -- > kangax --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
