Javascript Quiz
Additya
Osmo Saarikumpu
> See how many can you get right. A set of 20 javascript questions.
>
> http://ezdia.com/javascript_quiz/Content.do?id=539
Didn't see any questions, just a blank page plus a banner on top with
most links broken.
--
Best wishes,
Osmo
Stevo
You've probably already got the malware it wanted you to get. You should
be more discriminatory of the links you click on.
Peter Michaux
Works for me in Mac Firefox 3.0.15.
Peter
Stefan Weiss
> On Nov 12, 10:01 am, Osmo Saarikumpu <o...@weppipakki.com> wrote:
>> Additya kirjoitti:
>>
>> Didn't see any questions, just a blank page plus a banner on top with
>> most links broken.
>
> Works for me in Mac Firefox 3.0.15.
This page is just a container for various ads; the actual content is
loaded from <http://referencedesigner.com/tutorials/js/js_quiz.php?n=1>.
If JS is disabled, or NoScript is set to disallow scripts globally, the
page will remain (more or less) blank.
If you want to see the quiz, you can try the URL from the previous
paragraph. On the other hand, the questions are not very good, and the
whole thing is probably a waste of time for most people here.
An excerpt:
Q5. What is the HTML tag for start of javascript code
A. <js>
B. <javascript>
C. <java>
D. <script>
cheers,
stefan
Swifty
Maybe Q1 was "Can you get this page to work in your browser?"
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> If you want to see the quiz, you can try the URL from the previous
> paragraph. On the other hand, the questions are not very good, and the
> whole thing is probably a waste of time for most people here.
> An excerpt:
>
> Q5. What is the HTML tag for start of javascript code
> A. <js>
> B. <javascript>
> C. <java>
> D. <script>
You snipped answer `E', didn't you?
PointedEars
--
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> Stefan Weiss wrote:
>> D. <script>
>
> You snipped answer `E', didn't you?
D would be correct for HTML5.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
'Javascript frameworks is a disruptive technology'
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> writes:
>> Stefan Weiss wrote:
>>> D. <script>
>> You snipped answer `E', didn't you?
>
> D would be correct for HTML5.
There is no HTML5 (yet), though.
PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
Jorge
wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de> writes:
>
> > Stefan Weiss wrote:
> >> D. <script>
>
> > You snipped answer `E', didn't you?
>
> D would be correct for HTML5.
Yes, and, in addition:
1.- The *tag* is <script>, the type is an *attribute*, isn't it ?
2.- Don't browsers default to type="text/javascript", anyway ?
--
Jorge.
Jorge
wrote:
> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de> writes:
> >> Stefan Weiss wrote:
> >>> D. <script>
> >> You snipped answer `E', didn't you?
>
> > D would be correct for HTML5.
>
> There is no HTML5 (yet), though.
Since when is becoming a standard a prerequisite for something to be ?
--
Jorge.
Matthias Reuter
> 2.- Don't browsers default to type="text/javascript", anyway ?
If I remember correctly, at the time the type attribute was introduced, no
official mime type for java-/ecmascript existed. "text/javascript" seems
to be the most common value, but many more are in use. I think no browser
cares for which value is given, they all assume ecmascript. This is also
true if no type attribute is given.
Therefore, HTML 5 discontinued to have type a required attribute for the
script tag.
In the meantime, RFC 4329 (of April 2006, see
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt) defines application/javascript and
application/ecmascript, and obsoletes text/javascript and text/ecmascript.
Matt
Jorge
> (...)
> In the meantime, RFC 4329 (of April 2006, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt) defines application/javascript and
> application/ecmascript, and obsoletes text/javascript and text/ecmascript.
And the w3c validates even type="george/ofTheJungle", see, see:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.mac.com%2Fjorgechamorro%2Fempty.html
:-)
--
Jorge.
Richard Cornford
> Jorge wrote:
>
>> 2.- Don't browsers default to type="text/javascript", anyway ?
>
> If I remember correctly, at the time the type attribute was
> introduced,
> no official mime type for java-/ecmascript existed. "text/javascript"
> seems to be the most common value,
It was the value used in the HTML specs, so in the absence of anything
'more official' it became the value commonly used.
> but many more are in use. I think no browser cares for which value is
> given,
IE cares, at least it directly supports (in its (and the OS's) default
configuration) text/vbscript, with an option for any script language to
be implemented if the registry maps a MIME-style name to a DLL that
supports the Windows scripting interface/API (at least that was true up
until the time of JScript 5.6, the extent to which it is still true is
not something that I have had reason to look into).
> they all assume ecmascript. This is also true if no type attribute is
> given.
<snip>
IE varies the default depending on context. If your first SCRIPT element
is TYPE="text/vbscript" then any un-stated/unqualified following script
elements (and intrinsic event attributes that are not qualified (with -
javascript:/vbscript:)) will be interpreted as vbscript.
Though that really has no relevance for web clients, where vbscript
would not be used.
Richard.
Peter Michaux
> :-)
Sure that validates as HTML syntax but that doesn't mean the page will
behave the way you desired. A browser could choose to ignore script
elements with type="george/ofTheJungle".
Peter
Jorge
> (...) A browser could choose to ignore script
> elements with type="george/ofTheJungle".
Indeed, I've been scratching my head for quite a while at least once
because I typed <script type="text/javascrpt"> and the browser was
blatantly ignoring that <script>.
--
Jorge.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de> writes:
>> >> Stefan Weiss wrote:
>> >>> D. <script>
>> >> You snipped answer `E', didn't you?
>>
>> > D would be correct for HTML5.
>>
>> There is no HTML5 (yet), though.
>
> Since when is becoming a standard a prerequisite for something to be ?
With regard to correctness, that is explained in the "Status of this
document" section.
PointedEars
--
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
Captain Paralytic
> See how many can you get right. A set of 20 javascript questions.
>
> http://ezdia.com/javascript_quiz/Content.do?id=539
Well according to the quiz, the statement:
You need a compiler to compile the scripts of Javascript
is not true.
But surely if you are going to compile a script, you do need a
compiler???
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
If you want to get technical [1], then attributes are part of the
start tag - which is everything between the start-tag-open and
tag-close tokens.
/L
[1] Whoops, no that's me projecting again :)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
And there are widely distributed user agents that ignore `script' elements
where the `type' attribute value is any of "application/javascript" or
"application/ecmascript", so the RFC marking "text/javascript" as obsolete
is only of academical value until that changes (probably by those user
agents reaching their end-of-life and having a tendency to fall into disuse
afterwards.)
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>
Jorge
wrote:
> Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> writes:
> (...)
> > 1.- The *tag* is <script>, the type is an *attribute*, isn't it ?
> > 2.- Don't browsers default to type="text/javascript", anyway ?
>
> If you want to get technical [1], then attributes are part of the
Yes, yes indeed.
--
Jorge.