From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com (smtp-auth.no-ip.com [8.23.224.61]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3494C789FB for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:48:19 -0700 (PDT) X-No-IP: carhart.net@noip-smtp X-Report-Spam-To: abuse@no-ip.com Received: from carhart.net (unknown [99.52.200.227]) (Authenticated sender: carhart.net@noip-smtp) by smtp-auth.no-ip.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3A977400489; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carhart.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carhart.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t8T9paNZ014667; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:51:38 -0700 Received: from localhost (kevin@localhost) by carhart.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id t8T9pa8x014663; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:51:36 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:51:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Kevin Carhart To: Karl Dahlke cc: Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com In-Reply-To: <20150828232006.eklhad@comcast.net> Message-ID: References: <20150828232006.eklhad@comcast.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Edbrowse-dev] document.write atomic X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Edbrowse Development List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:48:19 -0000 Crud. To be honest, I really don't know. It's true - your apples example shows document.write building segments that don't make any sense on their own. It seemed to me that in my other example, well, you have to interpret the jquery syntax to understand it, but the point is that it says 'write', which pumps in whatever is in div.innerHTML, and then immediately afterwards, calls jquery's own find() method on that html. frameDoc.write(div.innerHTML); var $bingImg=$(frameDoc).find("#minimap > img"); But of the two examples, I think you're correct, because the use of jquery is probably a confound whereas your apples landing page uses vanilla javascript. The only thing that bothers me about taking sites.help.org as a precedent is that they appear to be the ethically challenged portion of the internet, and this might suggest that they are less than technically airtight too. For instance, they make an iframe out of: www.youtube-nocookie.com Which is like a phishing trick to deceive you. But does questionable intent necessarily mean that their javascript was bad?! Not necessarily but anyway, I will scout around a little more tomorrow just to corroborate with a little more usage. Kevin