Client-side JavaScript - Revision history

Biogeographist: changed redirect target to more appropriate section

2021-07-05T02:35:50Z

changed redirect target to more appropriate section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:35, 5 July 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	#REDIRECT [[JavaScript#~~Uses~~ ~~outside~~ ~~web pages~~]] {{r to section}}		#REDIRECT [[JavaScript#Website client-side usage]] {{r to section}}

SoledadKabocha: {{r to section}}

2012-11-14T05:10:37Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:10, 14 November 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	#REDIRECT [[JavaScript#Uses outside web pages]]		#REDIRECT [[JavaScript#Uses outside web pages]] {{r to section}}

Thumperward: redirect to main article. insufficient sourced material to warrant a split here

2011-12-09T12:52:06Z

redirect to main article. insufficient sourced material to warrant a split here

Show changes

AnomieBOT: Dating maintenance tags: {{Neologism}}

2011-11-28T23:26:03Z

Dating maintenance tags: {{Neologism}}

← Previous revision		Revision as of 23:26, 28 November 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{neologism}}		{{neologism\|date=November 2011}}

	'''Client-side JavaScript''' ('''CSJS''') is [[JavaScript]] that runs on the [[client-side]]. While JavaScript was originally created to run this way, the term was coined because the language is no longer limited to just client-side, since [[server-side JavaScript]] (SSJS) is now available.		'''Client-side JavaScript''' ('''CSJS''') is [[JavaScript]] that runs on the [[client-side]]. While JavaScript was originally created to run this way, the term was coined because the language is no longer limited to just client-side, since [[server-side JavaScript]] (SSJS) is now available.

Thumperward: tag

2011-11-28T23:05:53Z

tag

← Previous revision		Revision as of 23:05, 28 November 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{neologism}}

	'''Client-side JavaScript''' ('''CSJS''') is [[JavaScript]] that runs on the [[client-side]]. While JavaScript was originally created to run this way, the term was coined because the language is no longer limited to just client-side, since [[server-side JavaScript]] (SSJS) is now available.		'''Client-side JavaScript''' ('''CSJS''') is [[JavaScript]] that runs on the [[client-side]]. While JavaScript was originally created to run this way, the term was coined because the language is no longer limited to just client-side, since [[server-side JavaScript]] (SSJS) is now available.

Favonian: Reverted edits by Pokemonblackds (talk) to last version by Abdull

2011-09-06T23:16:38Z

Reverted edits by Pokemonblackds (talk) to last version by Abdull

← Previous revision		Revision as of 23:16, 6 September 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	</script>		</script>
	</source>		</source>
	In the 1990s and early 2000s, HTML comment marks within the {{tag\|script\|open}} tags (<tt><!--</tt> ... <tt>--></tt>) was sometimes required to ensure that the code was not rendered as text by old browsers that did not recognize the {{tag\|script\|open}} tag at all. The deprecated HTML attribute <tt>language="javaScript"<tt> was also required for some such browsers.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Scripts\|url=http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/interact/scripts.html\|work=HTML 4.01 Specification\|publisher=[[W3C]]\|accessdate=12 March 2011\|author=Dave Raggett\|coauthors=Arnaud Le Hors, Ian Jacobs\|date=24 December 1999}}</ref>		In the 1990s and early 2000s, HTML comment marks within the {{tag\|script\|open}} tags (<tt><!--</tt> ... <tt>--></tt>) was sometimes required to ensure that the code was not rendered as text by old browsers that did not recognize the {{tag\|script\|open}} tag at all. The [[Deprecation\|deprecated]] HTML attribute <tt>language="javaScript"<tt> was also required for some such browsers.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Scripts\|url=http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/interact/scripts.html\|work=HTML 4.01 Specification\|publisher=[[W3C]]\|accessdate=12 March 2011\|author=Dave Raggett\|coauthors=Arnaud Le Hors, Ian Jacobs\|date=24 December 1999}}</ref>

	JavaScript in [[XHTML]] and [[XML]] documents should be in XML [[CDATA]] sections, as follows		JavaScript in [[XHTML]] and [[XML]] documents should be in XML [[CDATA]] sections, as follows

Pokemonblackds: Removing link(s) to "Deprecation": . (TW)

2011-09-06T22:31:50Z

Removing link(s) to "Deprecation": . (TW)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:31, 6 September 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	</script>		</script>
	</source>		</source>
	In the 1990s and early 2000s, HTML comment marks within the {{tag\|script\|open}} tags (<tt><!--</tt> ... <tt>--></tt>) was sometimes required to ensure that the code was not rendered as text by old browsers that did not recognize the {{tag\|script\|open}} tag at all. The ~~[[Deprecation\|~~deprecated]] HTML attribute <tt>language="javaScript"<tt> was also required for some such browsers.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Scripts\|url=http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/interact/scripts.html\|work=HTML 4.01 Specification\|publisher=[[W3C]]\|accessdate=12 March 2011\|author=Dave Raggett\|coauthors=Arnaud Le Hors, Ian Jacobs\|date=24 December 1999}}</ref>		In the 1990s and early 2000s, HTML comment marks within the {{tag\|script\|open}} tags (<tt><!--</tt> ... <tt>--></tt>) was sometimes required to ensure that the code was not rendered as text by old browsers that did not recognize the {{tag\|script\|open}} tag at all. The deprecated HTML attribute <tt>language="javaScript"<tt> was also required for some such browsers.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Scripts\|url=http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/interact/scripts.html\|work=HTML 4.01 Specification\|publisher=[[W3C]]\|accessdate=12 March 2011\|author=Dave Raggett\|coauthors=Arnaud Le Hors, Ian Jacobs\|date=24 December 1999}}</ref>

	JavaScript in [[XHTML]] and [[XML]] documents should be in XML [[CDATA]] sections, as follows		JavaScript in [[XHTML]] and [[XML]] documents should be in XML [[CDATA]] sections, as follows

Abdull: /* Hello World example */ more precise, wikified

2011-06-26T22:23:54Z

Hello World example: more precise, wikified

← Previous revision		Revision as of 22:23, 26 June 2011
Line 37:		Line 37:
	For an explanation of the tradition of programming "Hello World", as well as alternatives to this simplest example, see [[Hello world program]].		For an explanation of the tradition of programming "Hello World", as well as alternatives to this simplest example, see [[Hello world program]].

	This is the easiest method for a Hello world program that involves using popular browsers' support for the ~~virtual~~ 'javascript' ~~protocol~~ to execute JavaScript code. Enter the following as an Internet address (usually by pasting into the address box):		This is the easiest method for a Hello world program that involves using popular browsers' support for the ''javascript'' [[URI scheme]] to execute JavaScript code. Enter the following as an Internet address (usually by pasting into the address box):
	<source lang="javascript">		<source lang="javascript">
	javascript:alert('Hello, world!');		javascript:alert('Hello, world!');

SmackBot: Dated {{Clarify}}{{Unreferenced section}} x 2. (Build p613)

2011-06-21T19:17:53Z

Dated {{Clarify}}{{Unreferenced section}} x 2. (Build p613)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:17, 21 June 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	</script>		</script>
	</source>		</source>
	In the 1990s and early 2000s, HTML comment marks within the {{tag\|script\|open}} tags (<tt><!--</tt> ... <tt>--></tt>) was sometimes required to ensure that the code was not rendered as text by old browsers that did not recognize the {{tag\|script\|open}} tag at all. The [[Deprecation\|deprecated]] HTML attribute <tt>language="javaScript"<tt> was also required for some such browsers.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Scripts\|url=http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/interact/scripts.html\|work=HTML 4.01 Specification\|publisher=[[W3C]]\|accessdate=12 March 2011\|author=Dave Raggett\|coauthors=Arnaud Le Hors, Ian Jacobs\|date=24 December 1999}}</ref>		In the 1990s and early 2000s, HTML comment marks within the {{tag\|script\|open}} tags (<tt><!--</tt> ... <tt>--></tt>) was sometimes required to ensure that the code was not rendered as text by old browsers that did not recognize the {{tag\|script\|open}} tag at all. The [[Deprecation\|deprecated]] HTML attribute <tt>language="javaScript"<tt> was also required for some such browsers.<ref>{{cite web\|title=Scripts\|url=http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/interact/scripts.html\|work=HTML 4.01 Specification\|publisher=[[W3C]]\|accessdate=12 March 2011\|author=Dave Raggett\|coauthors=Arnaud Le Hors, Ian Jacobs\|date=24 December 1999}}</ref>

	JavaScript in [[XHTML]] and [[XML]] documents should be in XML [[CDATA]] sections, as follows		JavaScript in [[XHTML]] and [[XML]] documents should be in XML [[CDATA]] sections, as follows
Line 22:		Line 22:
	</script>		</script>
	</source>		</source>
	(A double-slash <code>//</code> at the start of a line marks a JavaScript comment, which prevents the <code><nowiki><![CDATA[</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>]]></nowiki></code> from being parsed by the script.)<ref>{{cite web\|title=Script and Style elements\|url=http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#h-4.8\|work=XHTML™ 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)\|publisher=W3C\|accessdate=12 March 2011\|date=26 January 2000, revised 1 August 2002}}</ref>		(A double-slash <code>//</code> at the start of a line marks a JavaScript comment, which prevents the <code><nowiki><![CDATA[</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>]]></nowiki></code> from being parsed by the script.)<ref>{{cite web\|title=Script and Style elements\|url=http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#h-4.8\|work=XHTML™ 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)\|publisher=W3C\|accessdate=12 March 2011\|date=26 January 2000, revised 1 August 2002}}</ref>

	It is best practice for various reasons to reference JavaScript in external script files, e.g.:		It is best practice for various reasons to reference JavaScript in external script files, e.g.:
Line 57:		Line 57:

	==Incompatibilities==		==Incompatibilities==
	{{Unreferenced section}}		{{Unreferenced section\|date=June 2011}}
	Most incompatibilities are not JavaScript issues but [[Document Object Model]] (DOM) specific. The JavaScript implementations of the most popular web browsers usually adhere to the [[ECMAScript]] standard, such that most incompatibilities are part of the DOM implementation. Some incompatibility issues that exist across JavaScript implementations include the handling of certain primitive values like "undefined", and the availability of methods introduced in later versions of ECMAScript, such as the .pop(), .push(), .shift(), and .unshift() methods of arrays.		Most incompatibilities are not JavaScript issues but [[Document Object Model]] (DOM) specific. The JavaScript implementations of the most popular web browsers usually adhere to the [[ECMAScript]] standard, such that most incompatibilities are part of the DOM implementation. Some incompatibility issues that exist across JavaScript implementations include the handling of certain primitive values like "undefined", and the availability of methods introduced in later versions of ECMAScript, such as the .pop(), .push(), .shift(), and .unshift() methods of arrays.

	JavaScript, like HTML, is often not compliant to standards, instead being built to work with specific web browsers. The current ECMAScript standard should be the base for all JavaScript implementations in theory, but in practice the [[Mozilla]] family of browsers ([[Mozilla]], [[Mozilla Firefox\|Firefox]] and [[Netscape Navigator]]) use ''JavaScript'', Microsoft Internet Explorer uses ''JScript'', and other browsers such as [[Opera (web browser)\|Opera]] and [[Safari (web browser)\|Safari]] use other ''ECMAScript'' implementations, often with additional nonstandard properties to allow [[compatibility]] with JavaScript and JScript.		JavaScript, like HTML, is often not compliant to standards, instead being built to work with specific web browsers. The current ECMAScript standard should be the base for all JavaScript implementations in theory, but in practice the [[Mozilla]] family of browsers ([[Mozilla]], [[Mozilla Firefox\|Firefox]] and [[Netscape Navigator]]) use ''JavaScript'', Microsoft Internet Explorer uses ''JScript'', and other browsers such as [[Opera (web browser)\|Opera]] and [[Safari (web browser)\|Safari]] use other ''ECMAScript'' implementations, often with additional nonstandard properties to allow [[compatibility]] with JavaScript and JScript.

	JavaScript and JScript contain several properties{{~~clarify~~}} which are not part of the official ECMAScript standard, and may also miss several properties. As such, they are in points incompatible, which requires script authors to work around these bugs. JavaScript is more standards-compliant than [[Microsoft]]'s JScript, which means that a script file written according to the ECMA standards is less likely to work on browsers based on Internet Explorer.		JavaScript and JScript contain several properties{{Clarify\|date=June 2011}} which are not part of the official ECMAScript standard, and may also miss several properties. As such, they are in points incompatible, which requires script authors to work around these bugs. JavaScript is more standards-compliant than [[Microsoft]]'s JScript, which means that a script file written according to the ECMA standards is less likely to work on browsers based on Internet Explorer.
	This also means every browser may treat the same script differently, and what works for one browser may fail in another browser, or even in a different version of the same browser. As with HTML, it is thus advisable to write standards-compliant code.		This also means every browser may treat the same script differently, and what works for one browser may fail in another browser, or even in a different version of the same browser. As with HTML, it is thus advisable to write standards-compliant code.

	==Combating incompatibilities==		==Combating incompatibilities==
	{{Unreferenced section}}		{{Unreferenced section\|date=June 2011}}
	There are two primary techniques for handling incompatibilities: ''[[browser sniffing]]'' and ''object detection''. When there were only two browsers that had scripting capabilities (Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer), browser sniffing was the most popular technique. By testing a number of "client" properties, that returned information on computer platform, browser, and versions, it was possible for a scripter's code to discern exactly which browser the code was being executed in. Later, the techniques for ''sniffing'' became more difficult to implement, as Internet Explorer began to "spoof" its client information, that is, to provide browser information that was increasingly inaccurate (the reasons why Microsoft did this are often disputed). Later still, browser sniffing became something of a difficult art form, as other scriptable browsers came onto the market, each with its own platform, client, and version information.		There are two primary techniques for handling incompatibilities: ''[[browser sniffing]]'' and ''object detection''. When there were only two browsers that had scripting capabilities (Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer), browser sniffing was the most popular technique. By testing a number of "client" properties, that returned information on computer platform, browser, and versions, it was possible for a scripter's code to discern exactly which browser the code was being executed in. Later, the techniques for ''sniffing'' became more difficult to implement, as Internet Explorer began to "spoof" its client information, that is, to provide browser information that was increasingly inaccurate (the reasons why Microsoft did this are often disputed). Later still, browser sniffing became something of a difficult art form, as other scriptable browsers came onto the market, each with its own platform, client, and version information.

Line 77:		Line 77:
	if (document.images) {		if (document.images) {
	// only executed if there is an 'images' collection		// only executed if there is an 'images' collection
	document.images[imageName].src = imageUrl;		document.images[imageName].src = imageUrl;
	}		}
	}		}
Line 132:		Line 132:

	{{ECMAScript}}		{{ECMAScript}}
			{{Use dmy dates\|date=June 2011}}
	[[Category:JavaScript]]		[[Category:JavaScript]]

Nigelj: /* Combating incompatibilities */ Make the naming of browsers consistent - we had the distributor of one and the product name of the other. Another personal essay section with zero citations.

2011-06-21T19:12:34Z

Combating incompatibilities: Make the naming of browsers consistent - we had the distributor of one and the product name of the other. Another personal essay section with zero citations.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:12, 21 June 2011
Line 66:		Line 66:

	==Combating incompatibilities==		==Combating incompatibilities==
			{{Unreferenced section}}
	There are two primary techniques for handling incompatibilities: ''[[browser sniffing]]'' and ''object detection''. When there were only two browsers that had scripting capabilities (Netscape and Internet Explorer), browser sniffing was the most popular technique. By testing a number of "client" properties, that returned information on computer platform, browser, and versions, it was possible for a scripter's code to discern exactly which browser the code was being executed in. Later, the techniques for ''sniffing'' became more difficult to implement, as Internet Explorer began to "spoof" its client information, that is, to provide browser information that was increasingly inaccurate (the reasons why Microsoft did this are often disputed). Later still, browser sniffing became something of a difficult art form, as other scriptable browsers came onto the market, each with its own platform, client, and version information.		There are two primary techniques for handling incompatibilities: ''[[browser sniffing]]'' and ''object detection''. When there were only two browsers that had scripting capabilities (Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer), browser sniffing was the most popular technique. By testing a number of "client" properties, that returned information on computer platform, browser, and versions, it was possible for a scripter's code to discern exactly which browser the code was being executed in. Later, the techniques for ''sniffing'' became more difficult to implement, as Internet Explorer began to "spoof" its client information, that is, to provide browser information that was increasingly inaccurate (the reasons why Microsoft did this are often disputed). Later still, browser sniffing became something of a difficult art form, as other scriptable browsers came onto the market, each with its own platform, client, and version information.

	Object detection relies on testing for the existence of a property of an object.		Object detection relies on testing for the existence of a property of an object.