really well done script here.. has some fixes that arent part of this one.
and unit tests!
Thanks for all your great contributions to the web community.
I noticed your comment here. But I find it unclear. I was hoping you could clear up your comment above.
"really well done script here...": does that refer to css_browser_selector or cssuseragent?
"has some fixes that arent part of this one.": same question, which script is this referring to?
Are you saying that cssuseragent is the better script or css_browser_selector? and why? and if cssuseragent, what features do you think it has that css_user_agent does not?
I find css_browser_selector.js to be an excellent script. For me, css_browser_selector, goes into the right amount of detail. The script if small and easy to understand. Cssuseragent user agent also appears to be a good script, but, in my opinion, it seems to go into too much detail, and is not as easy to understand. It also left off your suggestion about either adding "js" or replacing "no-js" with "js".
I recently made some revisions to css_browser_selector to include several of the suggestions that were left in the pull requests, including yours about "js".(you'll see a 'hat tip' to you at the bottom of the script)
My version now includes:
any version of Firefox
more versions of Windows (Win7, Vista, XP, Win2k)
more versions of IE under unique conditions
if "no-js" present in HTML, replaces with js
I'd love your feedback, if you feel I have improved this script.
I was referring to cssuseragent in both cases.
OOOh your fork looks great. thanks for the formatting. :)
you should combine the lines 71 and 72, so you only set the className just one.
otherwise it's ace.
(just could use a test suite)