Was it that bad? :D
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
[email protected]> wrote:
> alert, setInterval and setTimeout via silly tricks can be reassigned.
> Apparently, IE does not allow the reassignment of the window.window, at
> least static in other browsers.
>
> try{window.window=null}catch(e){$.isIE=true};
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Diego Perini <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>> Juriy,
>> we agreed that if we can write something in the DOM everybody else can
>> delete/overwrite it and fold our testing.
>>
>> Your feature test on the "alert()" method will probably have failed
>> with this old piece of code of mine :-)
>>
>> http://javascript.nwbox.com/asyncAlert/
>>
>>
>> Diego
>>
>>
>> On 27 Gen, 22:20, kangax <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Jan 27, 1:37 pm, Diego Perini <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > > One "span" element with an id="length" will do much more damages to
>> > > every existing framework/library, and there are tons of properties
>> > > that can be overwritten. Should we also hope no other browser
>> > > implements conditional comments ?
>> >
>> > > Are you interested in how much a test is "foldable" or how good it is
>> > > into recognize if the browser is IE ?
>> >
>> > > First case you win, second case I win.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I understand your argument. Second "case" actually
>> > somewhat depends on the former one - how "good" it is would surely
>> > depend on how hard it is to *accidentally* break it. I also have no
>> > idea why you would want go with the weaker test when other - more
>> > robust ways - are available. Is it because `fileSize` saves few lines
>> > of code? It's up to you of course, but if something is known to
>> > produce false positives (in a not so contrived case scenario), why not
>> > try alternative approach? Chances of `document.fileSize` being truthy
>> > are too big (as for my taste); Its value is easily changeable by any
>> > 3rd party script. Why such risk? Why not use test that operates on a
>> > lower level?
>> >
>> > I would probably try testing for behavior that can not be easily
>> > overwritten. Something that is at the core of the object/host model.
>> > Something like:
>> >
>> > var IS_MSHTML_DOM = (function() {
>> > var global = this;
>> > return (
>> > global.alert &&
>> > // some host methods return "object" for `typeof`
>> > typeof global.alert == 'object' &&
>> > // some host methods do not inherit from `Function.prototype`
>> > typeof global.alert.call == 'undefined' &&
>> > // some host methods throw errors on setters
>> > (function(){
>> > try {
>> > global.alert.x = true;
>> > return false;
>> > } catch(e) {
>> > return true;
>> > }
>> > })()
>> > )
>> >
>> > })();
>> >
>> > While it's still possible to fool this test, chances of that are, imo,
>> > much lower.
>> >
>> > --
>> > kangax
>> >>
>>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
