Thank you - I guess, then(?), it would not be a "bad" practice to substitute the AcitveX HTTP for the
HTML HTTP!
I don't even know if there is a difference between the two! But with the activeX service the URL does not seem to show in the status bar.
Does JavaScript have (try/catch)? Something new every day.
>If you want this to work well you really need more complex code. Here's what I use in my framework code:
>
>
>function GetXmlHttp()
>{
> var Http = null;
> if (typeof XMLHttpRequest != ""undefined"")
> {
> Http = new XMLHttpRequest();
> }
> else
> {
> try
> {
> Http = new ActiveXObject(""Msxml2.XMLHTTP"");
> } catch (e)
> {
> try
> {
> Http = new ActiveXObject(""Microsoft.XMLHTTP"");
> } catch (e) { }
> }
> }
> return Http;
>}
>
>
>Msxml2.XmlHttp is the most generic reference so it should work on just about any machine.
>
>+++ Rick ---
>
>>My project includes a browser. The project script usually makes HTML HTTP requests. The browser creates a reference to MSDOM using javascript (ex):
var oXML=new ActiveXObject("MSXML2.DOMDocument.4.0")
>>I also experimented with the MS XML Messaging object:
var oHTTP=new ActiveXObject("MSXML2.XMLHTTP")
>>I liked it. The script was not flashed in the status bar.
>>
>>Are their prohibitions against using the messenger object (as opposed to standard "scripted" urls). Are the two methods different? Any advice appreciated.
Imagination is more important than knowledge