[Dolda2000]

/me looks at the_unforgiven's code and melts into a little pool of JavaScript corruption...

"Aaargh, not the DOM! Not the DOM!"

Please, if you're going to do that, make it a normal (X)HTML list. If necessary, with a dynamic CSS selector to hide it when it isn't necessary.

[the_unforgiven]

Originally Posted by lakerdonald

it reduces the size of the pages. it's really a balance between http requests and page sizes. i guess jason thinks it's more efficient i guess to have 5 http requests to several small pages than 2 http requests of insanely large pages

Well, I don't agree...
Looking at the current state of HTML pages, they are insanely large because of all the images and fancy stuff - not because of textual data.
And for generating the drop-down, what you're looking at is raw textual HTML data (content-type: text/html :P) - unless you use some super-duper heavy duty compression algo on your images...
And, are we looking at a possibility of say a thousand forums??? :P

No offence please, this was meant to be a rather bad joke
I've to accept that I've gone nuts..

[the_unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Dolda2000

/me looks at the_unforgiven's code and melts into a little pool of JavaScript corruption...

"Aaargh, not the DOM! Not the DOM!"

Please, if you're going to do that, make it a normal (X)HTML list. If necessary, with a dynamic CSS selector to hide it when it isn't necessary.

Sure...
I just suggested one approach...
If you can do it completely without JavaScript, be my guest...

But, I thought Mozilla's JavaScript engine was really good & looking at the current browser scene, firefox is kicking IE's butt rather badly.. :P
which has been the culprit of most of the problems with its pathetic scripting engines..
So, we can expect Fx replacing IE on 90% of the computers in a rather short span??? - well, I don't use windows - except occasionally when forced to :P - and even on linux, Fx is my favourite anyway...

[Dolda2000]

Originally Posted by the_unforgiven

But, I thought Mozilla's JavaScript engine was really good & looking at the current browser scene, firefox is kicking IE's butt rather badly.. :P
which has been the culprit of most of the problems with its pathetic scripting engines..
So, we can expect Fx replacing IE on 90% of the computers in a rather short span??? - well, I don't use windows - except occasionally when forced to :P - and even on linux, Fx is my favourite anyway...

Sure, it's not that the JavaScript engines in existing browsers are bad. So let me clarify my argumentation a bit:

• 1. Client-side scripting is an ugly and out of place technology.[list:cd68757458]a. You shouldn't require client-side action at all -- HTML is a document description technology, not a user interface technology.
  b. It's the root of all troubles -- popups, windows resizing themselves, people blocking the right button, hiding status bar information (URL spoofing), etc.
  c. It requires a direct interface to the brower's HTML parser at page load time, which is like trying to connect the exhaust pipe of a car engine to the air intake.
  d. It makes a lot of assumptions on the user interface -- it's supposed to be based on an overlapping windows interface, have a status bar, be pixel-based, etc., ad nauseam.

2. It stifles browser innovation

• a. It's humongous -- it takes a long time to implement a fully capable JavaScript engine, thanks to the size of the function library.
  b. It requires integration with the HTML renderer and parsing engines and UI at almost every level, making a totally fine browser require more or less an antire rewrite to support JavaScript.
  c. It forces you to write a dynamic rendering engine, which is probably at least thrice the work of a static one, which is really all that should be needed.
  d. All in all, makes it at least ten times as much work to write a new browser as it would be if it weren't for JavaScript.

[/list:u:cd68757458]
It's really point 1.a and 2.d that are my primary points.

All in all, we should shy client-side scripting like the bubonic plague.

[lakerdonald]

dolda:but client side scripting can make the server load much less when it comes to trivial matters such as image rollovers, or implementing dhtml with your beloved css!

[jasonlambert]

the_unforgiven, thanks for your suggestion, however it is a little more complicated than that. Think permissions, ordering of listing, and grouping by category.

The way I am running mysqld at the moment, even the slightest underperforming query has a big impact on server load.

Like I said, the box has been removed for a reason. When I work out the most suitable way to cache it then you will get an option in your forum profile to enable or disable the jumpbox.

[Dolda2000]

Originally Posted by lakerdonald

dolda:but client side scripting can make the server load much less when it comes to trivial matters such as image rollovers, or implementing dhtml with your beloved css! ;)

Well, part of my point was really that DHTML shouldn't exist. HTML is a document description technology -- it's not for user interfaces. I don't want to be seen as conservative, though (like, HTML was never intended to be a UI technology, so it should never become, even if it's possible). The point is, it wasn't meant for user interfaces, and you can tell. Anyone who has tried to build a UI in HTML should know what a pain it is.

If we want a user interface over the internet, it should be something else, such X11 or NEWS.

[lakerdonald]

but that is totally against the spirit of programming in general! why should we shun people who have come up with a viable solution, albeit one which is esoteric. i was super insane at html/css/javascript a couple years ago, and remember staying up all night on several occasions coding menubars and ui's... i think that the DOM is flawed a tad, but i see no problem with a standard such as that

[scientica]

-insert evil laughter-
I use the javascript DOM bindings in Gecko (seems to be the only way to make pobject work instead of iframes, doesn't seem to work as link target :/ ) (not the broken JScript D(uh) O(h) M(isery) in Internet BugPipe) -- you know IE doesn't seem to (prooperly) implement rudimentatry dom functions like appendChild, removeChild....


"[1]a. You shouldn't require client-side action at all -- HTML is a document description technology, ot a user interface technology. "
Yeah, maybe it's better to write all interactive stuff in ActiveX :P ( j/k, never I'd use the by design vounerable ActiveX....)
Seriously, HTML(3.2,4.[01] aka "tAg-So<u>p") is AWFULLL, XHTML is <beautiful/> And some javascript on top of that can be good, unless it's popup code
So Dolda, what do you suggest for "interface technology"?


btw, anyone who uses javascript for rollover/hover effect either haven't learned css, or is forced to use javascript, or simply should be forced to to 1024 rollovers in javascript and then 2048 more just for the fun of it

[lakerdonald]

i love css as much as the next guy, but it's great to integrate css within javascript.