Hi,

I'm getting an "Access is denied" error in IE when I try to focus an
input box with node.focus()

My understanding is that should only happen when the domains are
different of the Javascript and the element that its trying to focus.
It might be cross-frame, but everything comes from the same domain.

The oddest part about this is that even though I get the "Access is
denied" error, the textbox actually does focus. Perhaps odder still,
it seems to not happen if I put an alert() immediately before the
focus(). Perhaps it has something to do with the page having lost
focus when focus() is called?

Very strange behavior and, as usual, IE is basically no help in
isolating what the problem is.

Thanks for any help.

-Jeff

On Sep 26, 4:12*am, Jeff Bigham <jeffrey.big...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm getting an "Access is denied" error in IE when I try to focus an
> input box with node.focus()
>
> My understanding is that should only happen when the domains are
> different of the Javascript and the element that its trying to focus.
> It might be cross-frame, but everything comes from the same domain.
>
> The oddest part about this is that even though I get the "Access is
> denied" error, the textbox actually does focus. *Perhaps odder still,
> it seems to not happen if I put an alert() immediately before the
> focus(). *Perhaps it has something to do with the page having lost
> focus when focus() is called?
>
> Very strange behavior and, as usual, IE is basically no help in
> isolating what the problem is.

Maybe this would help. < http://www.dannyg.com/ref/jsminifaq.html#q15
>

> Thanks for any help.
>
> -Jeff

HTH,
/sasuke

sasuke wrote:
> Maybe this would help. < http://www.dannyg.com/ref/jsminifaq.html#q15

Only the upper part could help. It becomes the usual Goodman nonsense
starting with "Setting the document.domain properties of both pages may
solve the problem". First of all, it does not solve the problem since
recent UAs tend to disregard this property and would make it read-only if
standards compliance is to be achieved; it would only solve the problem, as
this property was intended to function, if the second-level domain of both
requests were the same. And IE only shows the error (unless you have
disabled showing script errors, then there is only an error icon in the
status bar), other UAs exhibit the same behavior but might issue messages to
their background error consoles instead.

The nonsense goes on with "One more source of this error in IE ...". The
HTTP GET *command* (defined in RFCs 1945 and 2616) does NOT have a built-in
limit (for the request URI), especially not around 512 characters. In fact,
URIs have no limit defined (in RFC3986) at all, but Internet Explorer has
implemented a (quite annoying) limit of 2083 characters per URI -- an
information that is readily available in the MSKB, along with its
workaround, had Goodman the general intention to back up any of his
ridiculous claims: <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208427>.

Incidentally, you should take everything Goodman says or writes with regard
to Web development with at least a handful of salt. You might get the
picture when I tell you that his facts hit rate appears to be even lower
than Resig's.


HTH

PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

On Sep 26, 9:28*pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
>
> The nonsense goes on with "One more source of this error in IE ...". *The
> HTTP GET *command* (defined in RFCs 1945 and 2616) does NOT have a built-in
> limit (for the request URI), especially not around 512 characters. *In fact,
> URIs have no limit defined (in RFC3986) at all, but Internet Explorer has
> implemented a (quite annoying) limit of 2083 characters per URI -- an
> information that is readily available in the MSKB, along with its
> workaround, had Goodman the general intention to back up any of his
> ridiculous claims: <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208427>.
>

But that's not a workaround. URIs are limited to 2083 bytes in IE.
Full stop. That you can send whatever in the headers or in the payload
of a POST is another completely different and unrelated matter. Do you
work for M$ or what ?

--
Jorge.

Jorge wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The nonsense goes on with "One more source of this error in IE ...". The
>> HTTP GET *command* (defined in RFCs 1945 and 2616) does NOT have a built-in
>> limit (for the request URI), especially not around 512 characters. In fact,
>> URIs have no limit defined (in RFC3986) at all, but Internet Explorer has
>> implemented a (quite annoying) limit of 2083 characters per URI -- an
>> information that is readily available in the MSKB, along with its
>> workaround, had Goodman the general intention to back up any of his
>> ridiculous claims: <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208427>.
>
> But that's not a workaround. URIs are limited to 2083 bytes in IE.

No, to 2083 *characters*. On a side note, HTTP/1.1 allows servers to
support a limited Request-URIs length, and they SHOULD respond with a
special status code in the case the request URI is too long.

> Full stop. That you can send whatever in the headers or in the payload
> of a POST is another completely different and unrelated matter.

It is a solution for the problem that was suggested *both* by Goodman and
the MSKB. However, the problem was not properly analyzed by Goodman which
needed correction. That correction, made by me, was backed up with a
reference to the MSKB.

> Do you work for M$ or what ?

Get a life.


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$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>

On Sep 27, 3:42*am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:

> No, to 2083 *characters*. *On a side note, HTTP/1.1 allows servers to
> support a limited Request-URIs length, and they SHOULD respond with a
> special status code in the case the request URI is too long.
>

Well. Of course there's not much point in accepting a 200GB url,
right ?
But 2083 *characters* doesn't look like a reasonable maximum.
Furthermore, I can inject into a page or simply run a (longer that
2083 *characters*) program as a bookmarklet in any other browser
except IE. Always IE.

--
Jorge.