Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Peter Flynn Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Inserting a DIV inside another DIV Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 11:40:14 +0100 Organization: Usenet Labs Bozon Detector Facility Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <6711ac96-c627-4e0c-b267-6a7602e0cdc5@googlegroups.com> <5095798.DvuYhMxLoT@PointedEars.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net veyS3/nT0KF9TcuyAoI5cgWEayY4t7T/nhNoopvks9CPGlCfWS Cancel-Lock: sha1:lhKGZ1eUeZD+OpM3IrQe4pD6ODc= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 In-Reply-To: <5095798.DvuYhMxLoT@PointedEars.de> Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:33894 On 27/08/17 02:16, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > [Supersedes, in order not to be misunderstood] > > Peter Flynn wrote: > [snip] >> Doubly confusing because the designer who chose that phrase also didn't >> understand this kind of markup — you are correct, one does not "append" >> inside an element, one "inserts". One "appends" to a list; if there is >> nothing to append to, it makes no sense to use the word "append". [snip] > > Utter nonsense. I'm afraid not. > By calling the appendChild() method of an element object, one appends a > child node to the list of child nodes of an element node, Right, no disagreement there. But what if there are no child nodes? My point is that the choice of *name* for the method is misleading in that circumstance. "Insert" is the normal name for this action (see the menus of any XML editor). > Sadly, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. Oh dear. > I strongly suggest you be silent until this has changed, in order not to > confuse people, especially those who are very confused already. You have my deepest sympathy. > To begin with, there is no “Javascript” (see sig). *plonk* P