![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section needs removing, re-structuring or re-naming this section. It is a borderline 'how to' section and gives an incomplete view of 'cross-browser'. It's demonstrating how to style an element with JavaScript, which in itself is a nightmare. It is also incomplete as there are many many more ways to perform 'cross browser coding' including conditional statements, general CSS, CSS hacks. Please reply with any suggestions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryz14 ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I personally feel the text of this articles has some major problems:
I would vote for restoring the mention of multiple web browsers instead of all, removing the distinction with "multi-browser", and cleaning up any other text related to this definition. However, I don't just want to go in the text and make these changes, because other people might have valid reasons for keeping this definition as it stands now.
What do you think? Peter ( talk)
This article uses links in headings, violating Section headings - "Headings should not normally contain links". -- Mortense ( talk) 13:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No, none of this is original research. Of course, last I checked, Wikipedia eschews technical newsgroups (e.g. CLJ) as sources. Unfortunately, that's where cross-browser scripting has been discussed historically.
This is the start of the same argument that got the My Library page deleted. If you are going to cite clueless bloggers on the topic of JS and cross-browser scripting, then you will have to accept expert accounts from related newsgroups. 75.186.15.4 ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, one of the examples is in blog-form. It's a fairly influential article, cited in many subsequent articles on the subject and it originated from discussions on CLJ, which can be cited as well. That's where cross-browser scripting was discussed primarily from roughly 1996 through 2006. After that the Ajax craze gave birth to thousands of JS blogs, which tended to drown out the technical newsgroups. An encyclopedia should reflect the most informed sources at the time, not the loudest.
http://michaux.ca/articles/feature-detection-state-of-the-art-browser-scripting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.15.4 ( talk) 03:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Now they are in some sort of retaliatory tug of war. Completely ridiculous, but going to restructure the entire article in near future to remove any and all lists (will be made into footnotes). Article has been here for years, but nothing ever came up until this idiot decided to post "cross-browser testing" links, which are highly inappropriate for this article.
They should have actually read the article first, then they would have understood that *no amount of empirical evidence gathering can determine cross-browser code*. Test in a 100 browsers, still no certainty that it is cross-browser. Keep going until infinity, still don't know. Have to actually read the *code* to find out. Even a failed test would not indicate that the code isn't cross-browser (may just have a hole in its feature detection/testing).
If *anybody* is qualified to write and curate this article, history says it is me. ;)
- David Mark
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section needs removing, re-structuring or re-naming this section. It is a borderline 'how to' section and gives an incomplete view of 'cross-browser'. It's demonstrating how to style an element with JavaScript, which in itself is a nightmare. It is also incomplete as there are many many more ways to perform 'cross browser coding' including conditional statements, general CSS, CSS hacks. Please reply with any suggestions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryz14 ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I personally feel the text of this articles has some major problems:
I would vote for restoring the mention of multiple web browsers instead of all, removing the distinction with "multi-browser", and cleaning up any other text related to this definition. However, I don't just want to go in the text and make these changes, because other people might have valid reasons for keeping this definition as it stands now.
What do you think? Peter ( talk)
This article uses links in headings, violating Section headings - "Headings should not normally contain links". -- Mortense ( talk) 13:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No, none of this is original research. Of course, last I checked, Wikipedia eschews technical newsgroups (e.g. CLJ) as sources. Unfortunately, that's where cross-browser scripting has been discussed historically.
This is the start of the same argument that got the My Library page deleted. If you are going to cite clueless bloggers on the topic of JS and cross-browser scripting, then you will have to accept expert accounts from related newsgroups. 75.186.15.4 ( talk) 01:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, one of the examples is in blog-form. It's a fairly influential article, cited in many subsequent articles on the subject and it originated from discussions on CLJ, which can be cited as well. That's where cross-browser scripting was discussed primarily from roughly 1996 through 2006. After that the Ajax craze gave birth to thousands of JS blogs, which tended to drown out the technical newsgroups. An encyclopedia should reflect the most informed sources at the time, not the loudest.
http://michaux.ca/articles/feature-detection-state-of-the-art-browser-scripting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.15.4 ( talk) 03:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Now they are in some sort of retaliatory tug of war. Completely ridiculous, but going to restructure the entire article in near future to remove any and all lists (will be made into footnotes). Article has been here for years, but nothing ever came up until this idiot decided to post "cross-browser testing" links, which are highly inappropriate for this article.
They should have actually read the article first, then they would have understood that *no amount of empirical evidence gathering can determine cross-browser code*. Test in a 100 browsers, still no certainty that it is cross-browser. Keep going until infinity, still don't know. Have to actually read the *code* to find out. Even a failed test would not indicate that the code isn't cross-browser (may just have a hole in its feature detection/testing).
If *anybody* is qualified to write and curate this article, history says it is me. ;)
- David Mark