Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #17308 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Asen Bozhilov <asen.bozhilov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-11-19 13:00 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-12-23 19:13 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 226 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript
Maintainer of the FAQ Asen Bozhilov <asen.bozhilov@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 13:00 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 13:34 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ RobG <rgqld@iinet.net.au> - 2012-11-20 01:25 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-11-20 13:39 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Asen Bozhilov <asen.bozhilov@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 11:24 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1247@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-11-21 19:19 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-22 14:09 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1247@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-11-20 19:50 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 19:56 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-11-21 11:24 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1247@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-11-22 23:34 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 11:07 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1247@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-11-24 18:30 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ jim.ley@gmail.com - 2012-11-22 03:06 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Asen Bozhilov <asen.bozhilov@gmail.com> - 2012-11-22 07:15 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Martin Leese <please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> - 2012-11-22 08:48 -0700
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1247@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-11-23 20:00 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2012-11-24 10:36 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1247@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-11-25 19:16 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-11-26 10:18 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-11-26 12:50 +0200
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> - 2012-11-30 14:23 -0500
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-01 09:24 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> - 2012-12-01 08:45 -0500
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-12-01 16:17 +0200
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-12 19:30 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-01 18:50 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2012-12-02 19:25 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2012-12-02 21:31 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Asen Bozhilov <asen.bozhilov@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 03:48 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2012-12-05 12:55 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-12-05 14:52 +0200
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-06 06:16 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> - 2012-12-05 16:56 -0500
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-12-06 00:20 +0200
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-05 14:47 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 07:11 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 08:37 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-06 17:50 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 08:57 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-06 18:32 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 10:34 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-07 11:05 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-07 07:21 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-11 09:01 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-12 19:37 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> - 2012-12-07 11:24 -0500
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-11 09:00 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-07 20:54 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2012-12-08 03:42 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Good Guy <hello.world@example.com> - 2012-12-08 02:53 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-09 16:43 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-07 11:16 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-08 18:45 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 10:40 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-06 15:16 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 08:48 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-12-06 18:31 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-06 23:06 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 16:24 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-08 18:06 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-12-07 01:29 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-12-05 22:24 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 23:36 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-12-07 00:35 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-07 10:45 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 16:01 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-07 21:00 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-12-08 10:17 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-12-07 01:12 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2012-12-07 23:22 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-08 04:46 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-08 15:56 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-08 09:00 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Good Guy <hello.world@example.com> - 2012-12-08 17:54 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-08 20:53 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2012-12-09 11:02 +0100
Functions in JavaScript vs. mathematics & the name "JavaScript" "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-12-08 23:31 +0200
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> - 2012-12-09 02:02 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-08 23:12 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-09 16:44 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2012-12-10 01:30 -0500
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-08 16:04 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-08 08:37 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-08 21:34 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-08 21:49 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-09 11:05 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2012-12-06 03:24 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-06 16:09 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-06 15:23 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-06 17:44 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-07 15:03 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 09:05 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2012-12-06 18:59 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2012-12-06 19:24 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-06 19:26 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 14:11 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-07 03:07 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 18:36 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-07 04:11 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-06 20:26 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-07 20:40 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-07 01:58 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-07 14:32 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-07 07:22 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-07 11:19 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-07 21:11 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-07 16:19 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-08 18:33 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-08 22:14 -0800
FAQ source format (was: Maintainer of the FAQ) Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-12-09 13:56 +0100
Re: FAQ source format Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-09 08:09 -0800
Re: FAQ source format Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-09 19:12 -0800
Re: FAQ source format Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-10 20:49 +0000
Re: FAQ source format (was: Maintainer of the FAQ) Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-09 18:59 -0800
Re: FAQ source format Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-09 20:13 -0800
Re: FAQ source format Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-09 20:50 -0800
Re: FAQ source format (was: Maintainer of the FAQ) Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-10 20:41 +0000
Re: FAQ source format (was: Maintainer of the FAQ) Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-10 18:09 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-09 07:06 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-09 19:12 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-09 20:11 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-10 20:32 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-10 17:53 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-12 21:07 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2012-12-12 21:52 -0500
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-13 16:05 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-15 00:40 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-13 08:09 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-15 00:40 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-15 11:02 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-16 17:58 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2012-12-17 11:22 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-17 10:40 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2012-12-17 20:05 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-18 00:31 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Osmo Saarikumpu <osmo@weppipakki.com> - 2012-12-18 10:18 +0200
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2012-12-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-18 14:59 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-18 16:33 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-18 09:26 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2012-12-18 23:09 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-18 23:47 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-18 15:21 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1251@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-18 16:32 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-18 08:11 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1251@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-19 18:26 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-20 06:55 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-21 15:46 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-21 06:59 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-21 08:27 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-21 19:12 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-21 15:30 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-21 08:24 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-21 19:09 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1251@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-21 20:21 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-22 08:58 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-14 08:01 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Adam Silver <adambsilver@gmail.com> - 2012-12-14 00:28 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-15 23:25 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-15 00:39 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-16 00:23 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-15 15:00 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Osmo Saarikumpu <osmo@weppipakki.com> - 2012-12-16 17:14 +0200
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1251@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-16 17:32 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-16 17:24 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-18 17:15 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1251@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-19 18:57 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Osmo Saarikumpu <osmo@weppipakki.com> - 2012-12-27 23:03 +0200
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-28 11:14 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2012-12-28 09:12 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-08 18:24 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-12-07 10:11 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-13 09:25 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-14 07:26 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2012-12-13 21:45 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-07 21:06 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-08 02:45 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-08 13:30 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-09 17:00 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-12-08 10:14 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-05 09:03 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-05 18:39 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-05 11:56 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 12:30 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-06 08:54 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 23:38 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> - 2012-12-13 14:18 -0500
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-15 00:09 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-16 01:54 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1251@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-17 18:32 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-18 07:06 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-18 17:54 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-18 11:38 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-18 12:50 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-18 23:23 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-18 19:46 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-19 18:10 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-19 11:31 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-19 22:54 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-12-19 16:36 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-12-05 22:49 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-06 23:21 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-06 15:08 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2012-12-07 01:01 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Adam Silver <adambsilver@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 07:40 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-06 23:51 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Good Guy <hello.world@example.com> - 2012-12-08 02:19 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Christoph Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de> - 2012-12-08 03:57 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Good Guy <hello.world@example.com> - 2012-12-08 03:06 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2012-12-08 09:34 +0100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Good Guy <hello.world@example.com> - 2012-12-08 13:36 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-22 16:19 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-12-22 08:59 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-23 13:38 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-12-23 10:49 +0200
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2012-12-23 16:58 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1252@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-24 21:03 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-12-27 09:33 -0800
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1252@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-28 21:33 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-28 11:16 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-28 09:08 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-12-28 22:01 +1100
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-12-28 11:26 +0000
Re: Maintainer of the FAQ Dr J R Stockton <reply1251@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2012-12-23 19:13 +0000
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-09 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JOlEYPNjOMxQFwym@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> |
| In reply to | #17588 |
In comp.lang.javascript message <gcGdnaOcSMjLO1_NnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@westne t.com.au>, Sat, 8 Dec 2012 13:30:34, Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> posted: >BTW is "dessicated" an English word? So far as my English Oxford >Dictionary is concerned its not, while "desiccated" is. I was never very good with that word. As a small boy, I used to ask for desecrated coconut. -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 10:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <timstreater-E2AA33.10145508122012@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17581 |
In article <2AerrtQJplwQFwMv@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <2177393.4orgOXNLzl@PointedEars.de>, > Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:09:20, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> > posted: > > >IOW, should the subscribers of this newsgroup ever agree that it became a > >customer support forum, I am gone. This is not a threat; it is a fact. > > Let us all vote for that. The main purpose of computing newsgroups is > to be support forums. Dessicated esoteric discussions should be taken > to more private groups. +1 Let PointyHead go off and start comp.lang.JavaScript.advocacy. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 09:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <RoOdneSlG6UE4yLNnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #17475 |
On 12/5/2012 3:48 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote: ... > Thomas wants to maintain the FAQ and I believe he would improve the > FAQ with more entries and fixing the currents. I propose instead of > discussing who can or cannot be the new maintainer to give a chance of > Thomas Lahn. ... I came to this newsgroup as someone starting learning what is commonly called JavaScript, so I was presumably in the FAQ target audience. When I looked at the FAQ, I felt it was far too long. The temptation with a FAQ is always to turn it into every question anyone might want to ask about the newsgroup topic, whether or not it is actually frequently asked. I think the FAQ could be greatly improved by severe editing to get it down to a point where every question in it would be asked within a few weeks if it were not covered by the FAQ. Patricia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 18:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1463892.vp2pE7osQE@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #17485 |
Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 12/5/2012 3:48 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote: >> Thomas wants to maintain the FAQ and I believe he would improve the >> FAQ with more entries and fixing the currents. I propose instead of >> discussing who can or cannot be the new maintainer to give a chance of >> Thomas Lahn. > > I came to this newsgroup as someone starting learning what is commonly > called JavaScript, so I was presumably in the FAQ target audience. Yes, definitely. One must always keep the target audience in mind. > When I looked at the FAQ, I felt it was far too long. The temptation > with a FAQ is always to turn it into every question anyone might want to > ask about the newsgroup topic, whether or not it is actually frequently > asked. I think the FAQ could be greatly improved by severe editing to > get it down to a point where every question in it would be asked within > a few weeks if it were not covered by the FAQ. Full ACK. That is a part of what I intend to do. But I would not delete a good question-and-answer pair, only disable it for output for the time being (if I could use XSLT, I would devise an optional `disabled' attribute on the relevant element and “select” against that in the template). Should the question come up frequently again within a reasonable interval, it could be easily re-enabled. Removing the current hard(er)-to-maintain section numbering (while keeping the relevant anchors, so that references continue working) in favor of a better overall FAQ structure would be a part of that change. But I would have to see first how much can be done with the current content and code and how much work a change is going to be, so that the urgent tasks are done first. For example, disabling the daily posting of those (two years outdated) FAQ entries until they have been reviewed, as John Stockton suggested. Regards, PointedEars -- When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ls2dnZt27LxwOyLNnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #17489 |
On 12/5/2012 9:39 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Patricia Shanahan wrote: > >> On 12/5/2012 3:48 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote: >>> Thomas wants to maintain the FAQ and I believe he would improve the >>> FAQ with more entries and fixing the currents. I propose instead of >>> discussing who can or cannot be the new maintainer to give a chance of >>> Thomas Lahn. >> >> I came to this newsgroup as someone starting learning what is commonly >> called JavaScript, so I was presumably in the FAQ target audience. > > Yes, definitely. One must always keep the target audience in mind. > >> When I looked at the FAQ, I felt it was far too long. The temptation >> with a FAQ is always to turn it into every question anyone might want to >> ask about the newsgroup topic, whether or not it is actually frequently >> asked. I think the FAQ could be greatly improved by severe editing to >> get it down to a point where every question in it would be asked within >> a few weeks if it were not covered by the FAQ. > > Full ACK. That is a part of what I intend to do. But I would not delete a > good question-and-answer pair, only disable it for output for the time being > (if I could use XSLT, I would devise an optional `disabled' attribute on the > relevant element and “select” against that in the template). Should the > question come up frequently again within a reasonable interval, it could be > easily re-enabled. Yes, a good question-and-answer is an asset. It might even be useful to keep a not-so-frequently-asked-question file somewhere readily accessible, and searchable, so that anyone who is inspired to do so can read it, and answers can be reused if a question does get posted. I just want to shorten the FAQ a new participant is expected to read before posting a question. If it's too long it may put people off. > > Removing the current hard(er)-to-maintain section numbering (while keeping > the relevant anchors, so that references continue working) in favor of a > better overall FAQ structure would be a part of that change. > > But I would have to see first how much can be done with the current content > and code and how much work a change is going to be, so that the urgent tasks > are done first. For example, disabling the daily posting of those (two > years outdated) FAQ entries until they have been reviewed, as John Stockton > suggested. > > Is there anything I can do to help with the review? My language-specific knowledge is limited, but I have a good general programming background and computer science education. I do know how to search for information, and have read many programming language specifications. Patricia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 12:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cdb3cffc-ee54-47f3-9217-189ef1839341@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17500 |
Patricia Shanahan wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Removing the current hard(er)-to-maintain section numbering (while keeping >> the relevant anchors, so that references continue working) in favor of a >> better overall FAQ structure would be a part of that change. > >> But I would have to see first how much can be done with the current content >> and code and how much work a change is going to be, so that the urgent tasks >> are done first. For example, disabling the daily posting of those (two >> years outdated) FAQ entries until they have been reviewed, as John Stockton >> suggested. I'm not quite sure why this decision seems to have been made that Thomas is to be our new maintainer. I share some of Jukka's reservations, and would still rather find a group-editable solution with a small set of maintainers that would certainly include Thomas. > Is there anything I can do to help with the review? My language-specific > knowledge is limited, but I have a good general programming background > and computer science education. I do know how to search for information, > and have read many programming language specifications. But I think you could offer some of the best help in terms of deciding what is useful to a large group of potential FAQ readers. -- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 08:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <qoidnYNXqI4RXyLNnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #17502 |
On 6/12/2012 7:30 AM, Scott Sauyet wrote: > Patricia Shanahan wrote: >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Removing the current hard(er)-to-maintain section numbering (while keeping >>> the relevant anchors, so that references continue working) in favour of a >>> better overall FAQ structure would be a part of that change. >> >>> But I would have to see first how much can be done with the current content >>> and code and how much work a change is going to be, so that the urgent tasks >>> are done first. For example, disabling the daily posting of those (two >>> years outdated) FAQ entries until they have been reviewed, as John Stockton >>> suggested. > > I'm not quite sure why this decision seems to have been made that > Thomas is to be our new maintainer. I share some of Jukka's > reservations, and would still rather find a group-editable solution > with a small set of maintainers that would certainly include Thomas. > >> Is there anything I can do to help with the review? My language-specific >> knowledge is limited, but I have a good general programming background >> and computer science education. I do know how to search for information, >> and have read many programming language specifications. > > But I think you could offer some of the best help in terms of deciding > what is useful to a large group of potential FAQ readers. Much gets discussed, reasonable and unreasonable comments get made, a lot of conclusions are reached, and... nothing gets done. Andrew Poulos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 23:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k9oidm$cgr$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17504 |
W dniu 2012-12-05 22:54, Andrew Poulos pisze: > Much gets discussed, reasonable and unreasonable comments get made, a > lot of conclusions are reached, and... nothing gets done. Typical situation for corporation :D -- Cezary Tomczyk http://www.ctomczyk.pl/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-13 14:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.DEB.2.02.1212131407130.2263@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain> |
| In reply to | #17504 |
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Andrew Poulos wrote: > Much gets discussed, reasonable and unreasonable comments get made, > a lot of conclusions are reached, and... nothing gets done. Given the request of a "clear mandate" from Jim Ley, no single person seems to be capable of garnering sufficient support. Too many cats need to be herded. Therefore I suggest a divergent FAQ, composed by Thomas, perhaps with the assistance of myself and others. It would not bear the label of the newsgroup, but would simply be a "JavaScript FAQ". The newsgroup would then be able to move forward with a wiki-style FAQ, which seems to have sufficient support. Thomas can then move forward with a pedantic piece, whilst the newsgroup can communally produce a friendly, open piece. Both factions would prosper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-15 00:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dupBQcTe+7yQFwau@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> |
| In reply to | #17696 |
In comp.lang.javascript message <alpine.DEB.2.02.1212131407130.2263@ubun tu.ubuntu-domain>, Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:18:25, Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> posted: >On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Andrew Poulos wrote: > >> Much gets discussed, reasonable and unreasonable comments get made, >> a lot of conclusions are reached, and... nothing gets done. > >Given the request of a "clear mandate" from Jim Ley, no single >person seems to be capable of garnering sufficient support. Too many >cats need to be herded. > >Therefore I suggest a divergent FAQ, composed by Thomas, perhaps >with the assistance of myself and others. It would not bear the label >of the newsgroup, but would simply be a "JavaScript FAQ". The >newsgroup would then be able to move forward with a wiki-style FAQ, >which seems to have sufficient support. Thomas can then move forward >with a pedantic piece, whilst the newsgroup can communally produce a >friendly, open piece. Both factions would prosper. He with a Kaiser complex should put his material on his own site, quite independently of the newsgroup (as I do), and other FAQs should link to it with a sufficient description. It will not be a CLJ FAQ. He can best serve the newsgroup (though that does not appear to be his aim) by his absence. All who want a Wiki FAQ should do, and be done to, likewise, apart from the absence. It will be a JavaScript FAQ, not a CLJ FAQ. The CLJ FAQ was at one time posted in two or three parts. I suggest that it should now have three parts, completely independent of each other and independently edited on behalf of the group. One part to be about the use of the newsgroup, only. One part to be about implementations (ECMAScript, JavaScript, JScript) and also about external resources (books, links to other FAQs and groups). One part to be strictly about coding. All, if possible, to be posted here weekly or fortnightly, with daily fragments. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05. Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-16 01:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2715826.m0UDekTA75@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #17696 |
Matt McDonald wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Andrew Poulos wrote:
>> Much gets discussed, reasonable and unreasonable comments get made,
>> a lot of conclusions are reached, and... nothing gets done.
>
> Given the request of a "clear mandate" from Jim Ley, no single
> person seems to be capable of garnering sufficient support. Too many
> cats need to be herded.
>
> Therefore I suggest a divergent FAQ, composed by Thomas,
I would like to think of it more as “refactored” than “composed”. AISB, I
have no intention of rewriting the whole thing unless absolutely necessary,
and then only if I am not doing it on my own.
> perhaps with the assistance of myself and others. It would not bear the
> label of the newsgroup, but would simply be a "JavaScript FAQ". The
> newsgroup would then be able to move forward with a wiki-style FAQ,
> which seems to have sufficient support.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am not so sure about that.
> Thomas can then move forward with a pedantic piece, whilst the newsgroup
> can communally produce a friendly, open piece.
I know what you mean :)
> Both factions would prosper.
As you probably know, I am always in favor of “prosper” :) And so,
following Patricia's suggestion and your ongoing encouragement I have
mirrored the FAQ just to see what would be possible.
(You may skip ahead from here to the more important part.)
To my initial surprise, mirroring the FAQ also downloaded the script that
generates the HTML version of the FAQ, process.wsf (which indicates a
security leak, but good for me). Meaning that, while the FAQ is XML-based
indeed, for content generation it uses an XML parser hand-written in
Microsoft JScript, dependent on the Windows Script Host.
I commend Scott's approach of using an ECMAScript implementation for the
generation of the FAQ, and wish him good luck there. Building something is
a good approach, maybe the key ingredient, to understanding its foundation.
But one should always strive to use the right tool for the right job, and I
think it is more important for the target audience of a FAQ that there is a
FAQ than how that FAQ is being created. I also think that a FAQ of a Usenet
newsgroup should not be discussed on the Web, like on GitHub.
[This may be not obvious to those who have learned of
comp.lang.javascript only via Google Groups, but know that this
newsgroup, and Usenet, is _not_ located on the Web nor has it much to
do with the Internet. It is only mirrored there, for example by
Google. See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet>.]
IMHO, instead of rewriting the FAQ from scratch it is better to follow an
iterative approach here: make the best use of what we already have and
improve that step by step. What we already have is XML data. I have been
developing Web sites using an XML-based content management system
(Weblication) for the last two years, so I know well what is possible with
XML data.
An often overlooked advantage of XML is that – by contrast e. g. to
Markdown – it is not strictly a text format; it is a platform-independent,
*structured* *data* format (that also accounts for its often rightfully
disliked verbosity). The advantage of such a data format, if used properly,
is that presentation of data is virtually independent of the stored data.
The FAQ parser already makes use of that by generating the table of contents
from the headings of the sections; probably so does the section-posting
script (which I have not found yet). But those do not really make use of
the versatility and platform-independence of XML, which probably also
accounts for the formatting problems observed with the regularly posted
plain-text versions of FAQ sections. Also the XML source of the FAQ is not
written as readable as it could be, which contributes to the impression of
some people that an XML-based FAQ would not be easy to maintain.
(Here endeth the lecture ;-))
To those ends, I have replaced that hand-written XML parser with a much less
complex, equivalent¹ XSLT stylesheet, which it is used in a rather short PHP
script. It was (and is going to be) an interesting exercise for me. The
preliminary result of that can be seen here:
<http://PointedEars.de/scripts/faq/cljs/>
[There is the possibility to have shorter URLs by redirection, like
<http://PointedEars.de/faq/>
→ <http://PointedEars.de/scripts/faq/cljs/>.
I have chosen the “scripts/faq/” path because it already contains a
JavaScript-FAQ in German that I had written for SELFHTML.DE, which
hosts a Web forum that I was the moderator of from 2001 to 2006 CE.]
The same XSLT stylesheet can be adapted to generate a well-formatted
plain-text version of this FAQ or its sections, too.
In order to keep track of changes, I have created another Subversion (SVN)
repository on my site, which can be browsed via
<http://PointedEars.de/websvn/listing.php?repname=FAQs&path=%2Ftrunk%2Fcljs%2F&#af3ba590656341a4eba7a67fe4037dbd0>
I can set up read and/or write access with SVN clients to the cljs/ path via
<http://PointedEars.de/svn/FAQs/trunk/cljs/>. (I have to thank Christoph
'Mehdorn' Weber for that.)
[It is possible to use git as well. But I am not yet as experienced
with git as I am with SVN, and I would prefer to make the move to git
(which is a more contributor-friendly) for all my repositories, when
I am confident that I am not losing any data and it agrees with
my software development.]
Here is how I would like this to work for a start:
- Glaringly obvious errors I will fix by myself. (But you are welcome to
point them out to me anyway. See below.)
- In order to keep the number of discussions in the newsgroup on this FAQ
to a minimum (like someone here said so aptly, “Let's discuss
JavaScript!”), I am going to
* search the newsgroup for <FAQENTRY> sections, and past postings as
free time permits;
* read follow-ups to FAQ postings;
* welcome your suggestions for improvement via e-mail; to my Reply-To
address if possible, to my From address if the Reply-To address is not
feasible for you;
* select a collection of suggestions for discussion in the newsgroup, on
a regular basis if possible. I will hear your opinions, discuss those
suggestions (and only those) with you in public, and finally make an
informed decision based on those discussions. (Because given the length
of and diversity in this thread already, I seriously doubt it will be
possible to do this in a reasonable way based on group consensus, let
alone a majority vote; AFAIK, previous maintainers also never operated
on such a basis. Sorry.)
- There is the possibility, and it may become a necessity, to set up a
bugtracker for suggestions instead. (Bugzilla would be my first choice
then, particularly because it is Perl-based and I do not know it as well
as I would like to. Sometime in the future JSX is going to need a
bugtracker, too.)
- Although the copyright statement of the current FAQ is ambiguous to say
the least, as Patricia pointed out, I have no intention of infringing
copyright. Those who would like their contributions to be removed from
that FAQ may request that. However, the burden of proof lies with the
person requesting removal of content.
- I would appreciate it if this “FAQ for comp.lang.javascript” would become
the “comp.lang.javascript FAQ” later.
- Probably I have forgotten something ;-)
As always, constructive comments are welcome.
Regards,
PointedEars
___________
¹ I have not yet tested my XSLT implementation of the link checker (the
`document(…)' extension function appears to be promising), but it had
been disabled anyway.
--
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr J R Stockton <reply1251@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-17 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XDPT7ZRAV2zQFwgO@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> |
| In reply to | #17718 |
In comp.lang.javascript message <2715826.m0UDekTA75@PointedEars.de>, Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:54:41, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> posted: > >- I would appreciate it if this “FAQ for comp.lang.javascript” would become > the “comp.lang.javascript FAQ” later. > >- Probably I have forgotten something ;-) > >As always, constructive comments are welcome. Drop dead. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. For Mail, see Home Page. Turnpike, WinXP. Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links. Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free, DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-18 07:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e643eb5c-f292-44e3-b4ea-7e3a1a57d477@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17718 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Matt McDonald wrote:
>> Given the request of a "clear mandate" from Jim Ley, no single
>> person seems to be capable of garnering sufficient support. Too many
>> cats need to be herded.
>
>> Therefore I suggest a divergent FAQ, composed by Thomas,
>
> I would like to think of it more as “refactored” than “composed”. AISB, I
> have no intention of rewriting the whole thing unless absolutely necessary,
> and then only if I am not doing it on my own.
Although I believe in the long term a great deal of it needs to be
rethought, it should be done as a collection of smaller-scale
refactorings, and ideally should involve participation of as many
regulars as are willing to contribute.
>> perhaps with the assistance of myself and others. It would not bear the
>> label of the newsgroup, but would simply be a "JavaScript FAQ". The
>> newsgroup would then be able to move forward with a wiki-style FAQ,
>> which seems to have sufficient support.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I am not so sure about that.
No, I don't think there is sufficient support for any particular
approach yet.
>> Thomas can then move forward with a pedantic piece, whilst the newsgroup
>> can communally produce a friendly, open piece.
>
> I know what you mean :)
I hope that in the long term, it doesn't come down to dueling FAQs,
though. I hope this group is more adult than that.
>> Both factions would prosper.
>
> As you probably know, I am always in favor of “prosper” :) And so,
> following Patricia's suggestion and your ongoing encouragement I have
> mirrored the FAQ just to see what would be possible.
> [ ... ]
> To my initial surprise, mirroring the FAQ also downloaded the script that
> generates the HTML version of the FAQ, process.wsf (which indicates a
> security leak, but good for me). Meaning that, while the FAQ is XML-based
> indeed, for content generation it uses an XML parser hand-written in
> Microsoft JScript, dependent on the Windows Script Host.
I'm also surprised that it's there, but you're right, it's a bit of a
treasure-trove. I imagine the (Perl-based?) auto-poster is not as
easy to find.
> I commend Scott's approach of using an ECMAScript implementation for the
> generation of the FAQ, and wish him good luck there. Building something is
> a good approach, maybe the key ingredient, to understanding its foundation.
Thank you. I haven't had the time to spend on this that I would
like. But I'm hoping to in the next few weeks.
> But one should always strive to use the right tool for the right job, and I
> think it is more important for the target audience of a FAQ that there is a
> FAQ than how that FAQ is being created.
ACK.
> I also think that a FAQ of a Usenet
> newsgroup should not be discussed on the Web, like on GitHub.
I agree with this. I was proposing GitHub not as a replacement for
discussion on the group but as an adjunct to it, and as an easy way
for multiple people to work on the same set of documents. My thought
was that a post to the group might explain that the poster has several
proposed changes to FAQ entry #XYZ, detail those proposed changes, and
then mention a GitHub commit to the poster's copy of the repository
for people interested in making further changes to this version. If
the poster also mentions a pull request to the main branch, she or he
would be asking permission of the group to update the official FAQ.
> [This may be not obvious to those who have learned of
> comp.lang.javascript only via Google Groups, but know that this
> newsgroup, and Usenet, is _not_ located on the Web nor has it much to
> do with the Internet. It is only mirrored there, for example by
> Google. See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet>.]
ACK, except for "nor has it much to do with the Internet." The
internet certainly encompasses Usenet.
> IMHO, instead of rewriting the FAQ from scratch it is better to follow an
> iterative approach here: make the best use of what we already have and
> improve that step by step. What we already have is XML data. I have been
> developing Web sites using an XML-based content management system
> (Weblication) for the last two years, so I know well what is possible with
> XML data.
Interesting. I agree entirely with this: "make the best use of what
we already have and improve that step by step." And then I begin to
disagree. I think what we have is a collection of questions and
answers on topics of importance to comp.lang.javascript. The fact
that they are represented at the moment in XML is to me quite
unimportant. Although I haven't done so in several years, I also have
maintained large amounts of data in XML-based systems, often with
great success. I'm arguing that it's not really appropriate here.
> An often overlooked advantage of XML is that – by contrast e. g. to
> Markdown – it is not strictly a text format; it is a platform-independent,
> *structured* *data* format (that also accounts for its often rightfully
> disliked verbosity). The advantage of such a data format, if used properly,
> is that presentation of data is virtually independent of the stored data.
Actually, XML was more intended, in my understanding, as a document
markup language, and the use of it as a structured data format was
more of an afterthought. While the advantage you suggest is real for
some applications, I can't help but wonder if it's actually a
disadvantage in this case.
> The FAQ parser already makes use of that by generating the table of contents
> from the headings of the sections; probably so does the section-posting
> script (which I have not found yet). But those do not really make use of
> the versatility and platform-independence of XML, which probably also
> accounts for the formatting problems observed with the regularly posted
> plain-text versions of FAQ sections. Also the XML source of the FAQ is not
> written as readable as it could be, which contributes to the impression of
> some people that an XML-based FAQ would not be easy to maintain.
There is one more reason that I, for one, don't like the idea of the
XML-based FAQ: I really don't like the all-in-one nature of it. I
believe that smaller documents are easier to edit, to maintain, and to
share. While we could of course break the FAQ into multiple separate
XML documents, if we're going to break it up, then it's an appropriate
time to reconsider the format.
> To those ends, I have replaced that hand-written XML parser with a much less
> complex, equivalent¹ XSLT stylesheet, which it is used in a rather short PHP
> script. It was (and is going to be) an interesting exercise for me. The
> preliminary result of that can be seen here:
>
> <http://PointedEars.de/scripts/faq/cljs/>
This is well-done. I had gone through a similar exercise before I
started down my current path, found that it was certainly doable but
not followed it through as far as you've done.
I'm assuming that you recognize that it's missing the chapter
prefatory material from the current FAQ, for instance the beginning of
<http://jibbering.com/faq/#dates>, "ISO 8601 defines date and time
formats. Some benefits include...". Finding a way to include that was
what stymied me and my rusty XSLT skills when I tried to do something
similar to what you are doing. I'm sure it's possible, and I'm
betting that when I was using XSLT regularly I would have had a ready
approach, but I can't quite see it now. Of course if you're looking
at altering the XML, you could certainly find a structure that would
make this easier.
I don't know if you're worried about it at this stage, but there are
still some validation errors in your HTML output.
> [ ... ]
> The same XSLT stylesheet can be adapted to generate a well-formatted
> plain-text version of this FAQ or its sections, too.
>
> In order to keep track of changes, I have created another Subversion (SVN)
> repository on my site, which can be browsed via
>
> <http://pointedears.de/websvn/listing.php?repname=FAQs&path=%2Ftrunk%2Fcljs%2F&#af3ba590656341a4eba7a67fe4037dbd0>
Thank you for setting that up and sharing it. While I do prefer the
approach I'm preparing, I think it's good to have several to compare
and contrast. Somehow we'll muddle through this and in the end maybe
we'll end up with a more up-to-date and easy-to-maintain FAQ.
> I can set up read and/or write access with SVN clients to the cljs/ path via
> <http://PointedEars.de/svn/FAQs/trunk/cljs/>. (I have to thank Christoph
> 'Mehdorn' Weber for that.)
>
> [It is possible to use git as well. But I am not yet as experienced
> with git as I am with SVN, and I would prefer to make the move to git
> (which is a more contributor-friendly) for all my repositories, when
> I am confident that I am not losing any data and it agrees with
> my software development.]
I'm slowly making that switch. I'm in my later 40's and working with
a bunch of under-30's; often, I believe, viewed as the dinosaur. Git
is clearly a better idea, but getting my head around it is not always
easy!
> Here is how I would like this to work for a start:
>
> - Glaringly obvious errors I will fix by myself. (But you are welcome to
> point them out to me anyway. See below.)
Please, though, even when they're trivial, at least note the changes
to the group. They can be bundled together if they are not
particularly important ("This week, the following minor fixes to the
FAQ were made:...") but the group should still have a chance to note
them in case someone thinks they were not actually errors.
> - In order to keep the number of discussions in the newsgroup on this FAQ
> to a minimum (like someone here said so aptly, “Let's discuss
> JavaScript!”), I am going to
>
> * search the newsgroup for <FAQENTRY> sections, and past postings as
> free time permits;
>
> * read follow-ups to FAQ postings;
>
> * welcome your suggestions for improvement via e-mail; to my Reply-To
> address if possible, to my From address if the Reply-To address is not
> feasible for you;
>
> * select a collection of suggestions for discussion in the newsgroup, on
> a regular basis if possible. I will hear your opinions, discuss those
> suggestions (and only those) with you in public, and finally make an
> informed decision based on those discussions. (Because given the length
> of and diversity in this thread already, I seriously doubt it will be
> possible to do this in a reasonable way based on group consensus, let
> alone a majority vote; AFAIK, previous maintainers also never operated
> on such a basis. Sorry.)
If the document is presenting one side of something controversial
within the group, would you be open to also noting the diversity of
opinion on the subject?
> - There is the possibility, and it may become a necessity, to set up a
> bugtracker for suggestions instead. (Bugzilla would be my first choice
> then, particularly because it is Perl-based and I do not know it as well
> as I would like to. Sometime in the future JSX is going to need a
> bugtracker, too.)
If you do make the switch to git, pull requests can serve a somewhat
similar role. If you use GitHub, this can all be quite public, and
have attached discussions similar to what you'd get in Bugzilla, but
with a simpler way to actually apply the suggested changes.
> - Although the copyright statement of the current FAQ is ambiguous to say
> the least, as Patricia pointed out, I have no intention of infringing
> copyright. Those who would like their contributions to be removed from
> that FAQ may request that. However, the burden of proof lies with the
> person requesting removal of content.
Would you be willing to assign copyright of the work you create in
this context to the group if we can come up with a less ambiguous
statement? I for one would feel much better contributing if the
copyright were held by the group or if it were explicitly left in the
public domain.
> - I would appreciate it if this “FAQ for comp.lang.javascript” would become
> the “comp.lang.javascript FAQ” later.
I am not as yet abandoning my effort, and I suppose it will be in
conflict with what you are doing. But I hope that the conflict will
not last long. I am also hoping that the group effort I am proposing
will become the comp.lang.javascript FAQ later on. But I think that
if we're adults here, we will probably be able to create a FAQ that
satisfies everyone reasonably well.
In any case, thanks for your work. This is a great contribution!
-- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-18 17:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <15797403.gaI5B2VX2m@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #17754 |
Scott Sauyet wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> I also think that a FAQ of a Usenet newsgroup should not be discussed on
>> the Web, like on GitHub.
>
> I agree with this. I was proposing GitHub not as a replacement for
> discussion on the group but as an adjunct to it, and as an easy way
> for multiple people to work on the same set of documents. My thought
> was that a post to the group might explain that the poster has several
> proposed changes to FAQ entry #XYZ, detail those proposed changes, and
> then mention a GitHub commit to the poster's copy of the repository
> for people interested in making further changes to this version. If
> the poster also mentions a pull request to the main branch, she or he
> would be asking permission of the group to update the official FAQ.
This will be slow, if even feasible. Look at this thread. Can you tell how
long, if measurable, it is going to take for a change to be agreed on and
implemented? Who exactly is "the group"?
>> [This may be not obvious to those who have learned of
>> comp.lang.javascript only via Google Groups, but know that this
>> newsgroup, and Usenet, is _not_ located on the Web nor has it much to
>> do with the Internet. It is only mirrored there, for example by
>> Google. See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet>.]
>
> ACK, except for "nor has it much to do with the Internet." The
> internet certainly encompasses Usenet.
You are mistaken. Please read the referenced Wikipedia article, among other
material on this topic, more carefully.
>> IMHO, instead of rewriting the FAQ from scratch it is better to follow an
>> iterative approach here: make the best use of what we already have and
>> improve that step by step. What we already have is XML data. I have
>> been developing Web sites using an XML-based content management system
>> (Weblication) for the last two years, so I know well what is possible
>> with XML data.
>
> Interesting. I agree entirely with this: "make the best use of what
> we already have and improve that step by step." And then I begin to
> disagree. I think what we have is a collection of questions and
> answers on topics of importance to comp.lang.javascript. The fact
> that they are represented at the moment in XML is to me quite
> unimportant. Although I haven't done so in several years, I also have
> maintained large amounts of data in XML-based systems, often with
> great success. I'm arguing that it's not really appropriate here.
AIUI, extracting the question-answer pairs one by one into a directory
structure containing Markdown documents comes closer to creating data than
reusing data.
>> An often overlooked advantage of XML is that – by contrast e. g. to
>> Markdown – it is not strictly a text format; it is a
>> platform-independent, *structured* *data* format (that also accounts for
>> its often rightfully disliked verbosity). The advantage of such a data
>> format, if used properly, is that presentation of data is virtually
>> independent of the stored data.
>
> Actually, XML was more intended, in my understanding, as a document
> markup language, and the use of it as a structured data format was
> more of an afterthought. While the advantage you suggest is real for
> some applications, I can't help but wonder if it's actually a
> disadvantage in this case.
You may want to read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML> pp. to clarify that
misconception as well.
>> The FAQ parser already makes use of that by generating the table of
>> contents from the headings of the sections; probably so does the
>> section-posting script (which I have not found yet). But those do not
>> really make use of the versatility and platform-independence of XML,
>> which probably also accounts for the formatting problems observed with
>> the regularly posted plain-text versions of FAQ sections. Also the XML
>> source of the FAQ is not written as readable as it could be, which
>> contributes to the impression of some people that an XML-based FAQ would
>> not be easy to maintain.
>
> There is one more reason that I, for one, don't like the idea of the
> XML-based FAQ: I really don't like the all-in-one nature of it.
That is not a necessity. The Web (XHTML) documents of that CMS were
composed out of several XML documents, some with more textual, others with
more data-like content.
> I believe that smaller documents are easier to edit, to maintain,
ACK
> and to share.
NAK
> While we could of course break the FAQ into multiple separate
> XML documents, if we're going to break it up, then it's an appropriate
> time to reconsider the format.
I do not think so. What is needed is a *structured* data format, so that
the TOC writes itself, for example.
>> To those ends, I have replaced that hand-written XML parser with a much
>> less complex, equivalent¹ XSLT stylesheet, which it is used in a rather
>> short PHP script. It was (and is going to be) an interesting exercise
>> for me. The preliminary result of that can be seen here:
>>
>> <http://PointedEars.de/scripts/faq/cljs/>
>
> This is well-done. I had gone through a similar exercise before I
> started down my current path, found that it was certainly doable but
> not followed it through as far as you've done.
>
> I'm assuming that you recognize that it's missing the chapter
> prefatory material from the current FAQ, for instance the beginning of
> <http://jibbering.com/faq/#dates>, "ISO 8601 defines date and time
> formats. Some benefits include...".
I did not. Thanks.
> approach, but I can't quite see it now. Of course if you're looking
> at altering the XML, you could certainly find a structure that would
> make this easier.
Eventually I will alter the markup. For example, I do not see why the
element type names and attribute names would need to be all-uppercase,
making this harder than it needs to be.
> I don't know if you're worried about it at this stage, but there are
> still some validation errors in your HTML output.
I have noticed. For example, a LIST element with TYPE attribute value "UL"
was used that was not transformed into Valid HTML because there is no
special XSL template for it; UL elements have been used elsewhere, so it may
very well be that the LIST element type is obsolete.
>> Here is how I would like this to work for a start:
>>
>> - Glaringly obvious errors I will fix by myself. (But you are welcome to
>> point them out to me anyway. See below.)
>
> Please, though, even when they're trivial, at least note the changes
> to the group. They can be bundled together if they are not
> particularly important ("This week, the following minor fixes to the
> FAQ were made:...") but the group should still have a chance to note
> them in case someone thinks they were not actually errors.
To that end, I have included the “Change log” link and intend to post the
URL to it in FAQ suggestion summaries.
>> - In order to keep the number of discussions in the newsgroup on this FAQ
>> to a minimum (like someone here said so aptly, “Let's discuss
>> JavaScript!”), I am going to
>>
>> * search the newsgroup for <FAQENTRY> sections, and past postings as
>> free time permits;
>>
>> * read follow-ups to FAQ postings;
>>
>> * welcome your suggestions for improvement via e-mail; to my Reply-To
>> address if possible, to my From address if the Reply-To address is not
>> feasible for you;
>>
>> * select a collection of suggestions for discussion in the newsgroup, on
>> a regular basis if possible. I will hear your opinions, discuss those
>> suggestions (and only those) with you in public, and finally make an
>> informed decision based on those discussions. (Because given the length
>> of and diversity in this thread already, I seriously doubt it will be
>> possible to do this in a reasonable way based on group consensus, let
>> alone a majority vote; AFAIK, previous maintainers also never operated
>> on such a basis. Sorry.)
>
> If the document is presenting one side of something controversial
> within the group, would you be open to also noting the diversity of
> opinion on the subject?
I am open to discussing suggestions as described above. If they are
actually controversial, then the follow-up will contain a good
(counter-)argument why that is.
>> - There is the possibility, and it may become a necessity, to set up a
>> bugtracker for suggestions instead. (Bugzilla would be my first choice
>> then, particularly because it is Perl-based and I do not know it as well
>> as I would like to. Sometime in the future JSX is going to need a
>> bugtracker, too.)
>
> If you do make the switch to git, pull requests can serve a somewhat
> similar role. If you use GitHub, this can all be quite public, and
> have attached discussions similar to what you'd get in Bugzilla, but
> with a simpler way to actually apply the suggested changes.
I figured that.
>> - Although the copyright statement of the current FAQ is ambiguous to say
>> the least, as Patricia pointed out, I have no intention of infringing
>> copyright. Those who would like their contributions to be removed from
>> that FAQ may request that. However, the burden of proof lies with the
>> person requesting removal of content.
>
> Would you be willing to assign copyright of the work you create in
> this context to the group
No, for one because …
> if we can come up with a less ambiguous statement?
… I seriously doubt that copyright can be *transferred* to a not well-
defined entity.
> I for one would feel much better contributing if the copyright were held
> by the group or if it were explicitly left in the public domain.
Something like the Creative Commons licenses appears to be more reasonable
here (the CC Attribution-ShareAlike License is used by Wikipedia).
IANAL.
> […]
> In any case, thanks for your work. This is a great contribution!
No problem.
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
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-18 11:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <af10987b-7993-44a3-ac51-1f3edac4ceb5@u13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17758 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> I also think that a FAQ of a Usenet newsgroup should not be discussed on
>>> the Web, like on GitHub.
>
>> I agree with this. I was proposing GitHub not as a replacement for
>> discussion on the group but as an adjunct to it, and as an easy way
>> for multiple people to work on the same set of documents. My thought
>> was that a post to the group might explain that the poster has several
>> proposed changes to FAQ entry #XYZ, detail those proposed changes, and
>> then mention a GitHub commit to the poster's copy of the repository
>> for people interested in making further changes to this version. If
>> the poster also mentions a pull request to the main branch, she or he
>> would be asking permission of the group to update the official FAQ.
>
> This will be slow, if even feasible. Look at this thread. Can you tell how
> long, if measurable, it is going to take for a change to be agreed on and
> implemented? Who exactly is "the group"?
Does GitHub make this any more difficult, or are you objecting to
holding the discussions of changes on comp.lang.javascript itself? To
me, GitHub would simply be a means to store proposed changes and make
it easier to share them. It would have little to do with whatever
consensus-seeking discussions we would hold in the group.
>>> [This may be not obvious to those who have learned of
>>> comp.lang.javascript only via Google Groups, but know that this
>>> newsgroup, and Usenet, is _not_ located on the Web nor has it much to
>>> do with the Internet. It is only mirrored there, for example by
>>> Google. See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet>.]
>
>> ACK, except for "nor has it much to do with the Internet." The
>> internet certainly encompasses Usenet.
>
> You are mistaken. Please read the referenced Wikipedia article, among other
> material on this topic, more carefully.
I've been using USENET for more than 20 years. Around 2000, I wrote
an NNTP implementation as a project to learn more about Java
networking APIs. I've never seen USENET used on any infrastructure
other than Internet Protocol networks. Perhaps it once was. But
that's how I usually define "the Internet", and such seems consonant
with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet>.
The article you mention starts "Usenet is a worldwide distributed
Internet discussion system," which seems to agree with my notion. Can
you explain more clearly why you think Usenet does not have much to do
with the Internet?
>> [ ... ] Although I haven't done so in several years, I also have
>> maintained large amounts of data in XML-based systems, often with
>> great success. I'm arguing that it's not really appropriate here.
>
> AIUI, extracting the question-answer pairs one by one into a directory
> structure containing Markdown documents comes closer to creating data than
> reusing data.
I'm not sure whether I would want to debate that point or not. But
the main goal from my point of view is to have a maintainable FAQ.
I'm willing to break with the existing infrastructure if doing so will
make this goal easier.
>>> An often overlooked advantage of XML is that – by contrast e. g. to
>>> Markdown – it is not strictly a text format; it is a
>>> platform-independent, *structured* *data* format (that also accounts for
>>> its often rightfully disliked verbosity). The advantage of such a data
>>> format, if used properly, is that presentation of data is virtually
>>> independent of the stored data.
>
>> Actually, XML was more intended, in my understanding, as a document
>> markup language, and the use of it as a structured data format was
>> more of an afterthought. While the advantage you suggest is real for
>> some applications, I can't help but wonder if it's actually a
>> disadvantage in this case.
>
> You may want to read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML> pp. to clarify that
> misconception as well.
Yes, "afterthought" was too strong, but the basic point still stands.
The SGML and HTML heritages of XML revolve more around arbitrary
documents than around sophisticated data structures. In fact, the
article you cite includes, "Although the design of XML focuses on
documents, it is widely used for the representation of arbitrary data
structures." It is used for arbitrary data, but was designed for
documents.
>>> [ ... ]
>> There is one more reason that I, for one, don't like the idea of the
>> XML-based FAQ: I really don't like the all-in-one nature of it.
>
> That is not a necessity. The Web (XHTML) documents of that CMS were
> composed out of several XML documents, some with more textual, others with
> more data-like content.
>
>> I believe that smaller documents are easier to edit, to maintain,
>
> ACK
>
>> and to share.
>
> NAK
You're right of course. I should have dropped that or finished the
thought, which I couldn't find a way to say concisely. The idea was
that it's easier to share in the maintenance of a collection of
smaller documents than of a single large one.
>> While we could of course break the FAQ into multiple separate
>> XML documents, if we're going to break it up, then it's an appropriate
>> time to reconsider the format.
>
> I do not think so. What is needed is a *structured* data format, so that
> the TOC writes itself, for example.
This, of course, is one of the biggest problems with the method I've
been promoting. The TOC hierarchy would have to be presented somehow
as metadata. I have some reasonable ideas, but they would not be as
natural as they are in the XML format. The question would be whether
the trade-offs are appropriate.
> [ ... ]
>>> Here is how I would like this to work for a start:
>
>>> - Glaringly obvious errors I will fix by myself. (But you are welcome to
>>> point them out to me anyway. See below.)
>
>> Please, though, even when they're trivial, at least note the changes
>> to the group. They can be bundled together if they are not
>> particularly important ("This week, the following minor fixes to the
>> FAQ were made:...") but the group should still have a chance to note
>> them in case someone thinks they were not actually errors.
>
> To that end, I have included the “Change log” link and intend to post the
> URL to it in FAQ suggestion summaries.
I'm just hoping that it would not be the case that the only discussion
of these details occurred on the Web. Even if it was a brief sentence
in a post to the group, that would be preferable to a Web-only
technique. (And yes, this is from a Google Groups user, if a
reluctant one.)
>>> - In order to keep the number of discussions in the newsgroup on this FAQ
>>> to a minimum (like someone here said so aptly, “Let's discuss
>>> JavaScript!”), I am going to
>
>>> * search the newsgroup for <FAQENTRY> sections, and past postings as
>>> free time permits;
>
>>> * read follow-ups to FAQ postings;
>
>>> * welcome your suggestions for improvement via e-mail; to my Reply-To
>>> address if possible, to my From address if the Reply-To address is not
>>> feasible for you;
>
>>> * select a collection of suggestions for discussion in the newsgroup, on
>>> a regular basis if possible. I will hear your opinions, discuss those
>>> suggestions (and only those) with you in public, and finally make an
>>> informed decision based on those discussions. (Because given the length
>>> of and diversity in this thread already, I seriously doubt it will be
>>> possible to do this in a reasonable way based on group consensus, let
>>> alone a majority vote; AFAIK, previous maintainers also never operated
>>> on such a basis. Sorry.)
>
>> If the document is presenting one side of something controversial
>> within the group, would you be open to also noting the diversity of
>> opinion on the subject?
>
> I am open to discussing suggestions as described above. If they are
> actually controversial, then the follow-up will contain a good
> (counter-)argument why that is.
I guess what I'm asking is that if you would be able to share the
editorial voice when it's clear that there is a strong point of view
differing from your own. If you are writing your own FAQ for your own
site, that would not be necessary at all. But if you're hoping that
it becomes the official FAQ for comp.lang.javascript, then I think
it's important that you would be willing to note these disagreements
in the FAQ, even if you, as editor, chose to promote one side of a
controversy.
> [ ... ]
>> I for one would feel much better contributing if the copyright were held
>> by the group or if it were explicitly left in the public domain.
>
> Something like the Creative Commons licenses appears to be more reasonable
> here (the CC Attribution-ShareAlike License is used by Wikipedia).
>
> IANAL.
Nor I. But something like that would probably be appropriate.
-- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-18 12:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7Y2dnWHKpcF2S03NnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #17761 |
On 12/18/2012 11:38 AM, Scott Sauyet wrote: ... > I've been using USENET for more than 20 years. Around 2000, I wrote > an NNTP implementation as a project to learn more about Java > networking APIs. I've never seen USENET used on any infrastructure > other than Internet Protocol networks. Perhaps it once was. But > that's how I usually define "the Internet", and such seems consonant > with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet>. ... My initial use of USENET was over UUCP, before I had any Internet access. Patricia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-18 23:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1820492.ZBGHdalzjF@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #17761 |
Scott Sauyet wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> I also think that a FAQ of a Usenet newsgroup should not be discussed
>>>> on the Web, like on GitHub.
>>> I agree with this. I was proposing GitHub not as a replacement for
>>> discussion on the group but as an adjunct to it, and as an easy way
>>> for multiple people to work on the same set of documents. My thought
>>> was that a post to the group might explain that the poster has several
>>> proposed changes to FAQ entry #XYZ, detail those proposed changes, and
>>> then mention a GitHub commit to the poster's copy of the repository
>>> for people interested in making further changes to this version. If
>>> the poster also mentions a pull request to the main branch, she or he
>>> would be asking permission of the group to update the official FAQ.
>>
>> This will be slow, if even feasible. Look at this thread. Can you tell
>> how long, if measurable, it is going to take for a change to be agreed on
>> and implemented? Who exactly is "the group"?
>
> Does GitHub make this any more difficult,
Yes, for one it will exclude those who do not want to or cannot access the
Web or a git client (while discussing) but still want to participate in the
discussion.
> or are you objecting to holding the discussions of changes on
> comp.lang.javascript itself?
No, but I have serious doubts as to your proposition of the format of those
discussions, and I do not think you have thought this through. “Permission
of the group”? I ask you again, *who* *exactly* is “the group” to get
permission from?
> To me, GitHub would simply be a means to store proposed changes and make
> it easier to share them. It would have little to do with whatever
> consensus-seeking discussions we would hold in the group.
That would mean for those who are willing to participate in the discussion
to go forward and back between Usenet and the Web.
>>>> [This may be not obvious to those who have learned of
>>>> comp.lang.javascript only via Google Groups, but know that this
>>>> newsgroup, and Usenet, is _not_ located on the Web nor has it much to
>>>> do with the Internet. It is only mirrored there, for example by
>>>> Google. See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet>.]
>>> ACK, except for "nor has it much to do with the Internet." The
>>> internet certainly encompasses Usenet.
>>
>> You are mistaken. Please read the referenced Wikipedia article, among
>> other material on this topic, more carefully.
>
> I've been using USENET for more than 20 years. Around 2000, I wrote
> an NNTP implementation as a project to learn more about Java
> networking APIs. I've never seen USENET used on any infrastructure
> other than Internet Protocol networks. Perhaps it once was.
It was (Usenet predates the Internet) and still is.
> But that's how I usually define "the Internet",
There is a saying (at least in German-speaking Usenet), which roughly
translates into “The Internet is the cable-thing; Usenet is the people-
thing”.
The Internet is a *network* of interconnected networks (hence the name)
using a certain protocol stack. The (World Wide) Web is an application
of/on the Internet.
Usenet can make use of, but does not require the Internet protocol stack and
infrastructure. Nowadays it requires from the Internet merely its message
format, as specified in RFC 5322 (and predecessors) and referred to in
RFC 5536 (and predecessors).
> and such seems consonant with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet>.
>
> The article you mention starts "Usenet is a worldwide distributed
> Internet discussion system," which seems to agree with my notion. Can
> you explain more clearly why you think Usenet does not have much to do
> with the Internet?
See above. I am sorry to have referred you to an apparently
substandard/easily misleading article. Try this one:
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1/>
>>> [ ... ] Although I haven't done so in several years, I also have
>>> maintained large amounts of data in XML-based systems, often with
>>> great success. I'm arguing that it's not really appropriate here.
>>
>> AIUI, extracting the question-answer pairs one by one into a directory
>> structure containing Markdown documents comes closer to creating data
>> than reusing data.
>
> I'm not sure whether I would want to debate that point or not. But
> the main goal from my point of view is to have a maintainable FAQ.
> I'm willing to break with the existing infrastructure if doing so will
> make this goal easier.
A fundamental misconception. Breaking with an existing infrastructure can
by definition only make an implementation task *harder* because you will
also have to build your own, new infrastructure then. That does not mean
that the end result could not be *better*. But it requires more effort than
building on something that already exists. As a result, it requires more
man-hours to become at least adequate to what is intended to be replaced.
>>>> An often overlooked advantage of XML is that […] it is a
>>>> platform-independent, *structured* *data* format […]. The advantage of
>>>> such a data format, if used properly, is that presentation of data is
>>>> virtually independent of the stored data.
>>> Actually, XML was more intended, in my understanding, as a document
>>> markup language, and the use of it as a structured data format was
>>> more of an afterthought. While the advantage you suggest is real for
>>> some applications, I can't help but wonder if it's actually a
>>> disadvantage in this case.
>> You may want to read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML> pp. to clarify
>> that misconception as well.
>
> Yes, "afterthought" was too strong, but the basic point still stands.
> The SGML and HTML heritages of XML revolve more around arbitrary
> documents than around sophisticated data structures. In fact, the
> article you cite includes, "Although the design of XML focuses on
> documents, it is widely used for the representation of arbitrary data
> structures." It is used for arbitrary data, but was designed for
> documents.
The misconception here is that “document” must mean text.
>>> While we could of course break the FAQ into multiple separate
>>> XML documents, if we're going to break it up, then it's an appropriate
>>> time to reconsider the format.
>> I do not think so. What is needed is a *structured* data format, so that
>> the TOC writes itself, for example.
>
> This, of course, is one of the biggest problems with the method I've
> been promoting. The TOC hierarchy would have to be presented somehow
> as metadata. I have some reasonable ideas, but they would not be as
> natural as they are in the XML format. The question would be whether
> the trade-offs are appropriate.
Yes, indeed.
>> [ ... ]
>>>> Here is how I would like this to work for a start:
>>>>
>>>> - Glaringly obvious errors I will fix by myself. (But you are welcome
>>>> to point them out to me anyway. See below.)
>>> Please, though, even when they're trivial, at least note the changes
>>> to the group. They can be bundled together if they are not
>>> particularly important ("This week, the following minor fixes to the
>>> FAQ were made:...") but the group should still have a chance to note
>>> them in case someone thinks they were not actually errors.
>> To that end, I have included the “Change log” link and intend to post the
>> URL to it in FAQ suggestion summaries.
>
> I'm just hoping that it would not be the case that the only discussion
> of these details occurred on the Web.
How did you get that idea? This is Usenet.
> Even if it was a brief sentence in a post to the group, that would be
> preferable to a Web-only technique. (And yes, this is from a Google
> Groups user, if a reluctant one.)
> […]
Ex falso quodlibet.
>> [ ... ]
>>> I for one would feel much better contributing if the copyright were held
>>> by the group or if it were explicitly left in the public domain.
>>
>> Something like the Creative Commons licenses appears to be more
>> reasonable here (the CC Attribution-ShareAlike License is used by
>> Wikipedia).
>>
>> IANAL.
>
> Nor I. But something like that would probably be appropriate.
ACK.
PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-18 19:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c7d55ca2-b1cd-46eb-b97b-4952378ca9be@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17764 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> I also think that a FAQ of a Usenet newsgroup should not be discussed
>>>>> on the Web, like on GitHub.
>>>> I agree with this. I was proposing GitHub not as a replacement for
>>>> discussion on the group but as an adjunct to it, and as an easy way
>>>> for multiple people to work on the same set of documents. My thought
>>>> was that a post to the group might explain that the poster has several
>>>> proposed changes to FAQ entry #XYZ, detail those proposed changes, and
>>>> then mention a GitHub commit to the poster's copy of the repository
>>>> for people interested in making further changes to this version. If
>>>> the poster also mentions a pull request to the main branch, she or he
>>>> would be asking permission of the group to update the official FAQ.
>
>>> This will be slow, if even feasible. Look at this thread. Can you tell
>>> how long, if measurable, it is going to take for a change to be agreed on
>>> and implemented? Who exactly is "the group"?
>
>> Does GitHub make this any more difficult,
>
> Yes, for one it will exclude those who do not want to or cannot access the
> Web or a git client (while discussing) but still want to participate in the
> discussion.
I can't tell if I'm not making myself clear or if I'm missing some
essential objection. Do you share the same objection to the use of an
FTP client? The only roles I see GitHub serving are, first, as a
replacement for FTP or whatever other techniques are used to load
files to a central repository and, second, as a permanent roll-back
tool. A poster can point to a GitHub commit so that those responsible
for making changes to the official version can simply accept pull
requests to make sharing changes easier, but that does not at all
change how discussions would take place.
>> or are you objecting to holding the discussions of changes on
>> comp.lang.javascript itself?
>
> No, but I have serious doubts as to your proposition of the format of those
> discussions, and I do not think you have thought this through. “Permission
> of the group”? I ask you again, *who* *exactly* is “the group” to get
> permission from?
I have argued that a small group of people with the right to update
the FAQ would serve us better than a single maintainer, but that is
not germane to this question. Whoever is responsible for that, be it
an individual or a group, would presumably have to pay attention to
discussions related to <FAQENTRY> postings and present possible FAQ
entries. Presumably that individual or group would have final say on
what goes into the FAQ. But if they were not responsive to the
desires of posters to comp.lang.javascript, it would be useful if
those posters had some mechanism to choose a new maintainer or group
of maintainers.
Along the way, anyone might have a suggested change to a FAQ entry.
Posting the suggested change in the group would be a minimum for
serious consideration. But if it were done the way I suggested, a
post that included a GitHub pull request would make the job of the FAQ
maintainer easier. If the decision was made to accept that change,
the process to do so would be trivial, and the historical record would
be very clear.
>> To me, GitHub would simply be a means to store proposed changes and make
>> it easier to share them. It would have little to do with whatever
>> consensus-seeking discussions we would hold in the group.
>
> That would mean for those who are willing to participate in the discussion
> to go forward and back between Usenet and the Web.
Only if links to GitHub were the only way the proposals were shared.
I would always expect the proposals be made as posts to the group.
Links to GitHub would be used simply to make it easier to maintain the
FAQ.
> [ ... ]
> Usenet can make use of, but does not require the Internet protocol stack and
> infrastructure. Nowadays it requires from the Internet merely its message
> format, as specified in RFC 5322 (and predecessors) and referred to in
> RFC 5536 (and predecessors).
ACK.
Thank you. I know that I haven't been around for the entire history
of USENET, but as a twenty-year veteran, I have felt as though I'd
seen a lot of it. But some of this was new for me. My first usage
was on a VAX, and I was told that the underlying protocol stack was an
IP stack. I didn't know much about UUCP or alternate transport
mechanisms that did and still do exists. Thank you for the
information.
>>>> [ ... ] Although I haven't done so in several years, I also have
>>>> maintained large amounts of data in XML-based systems, often with
>>>> great success. I'm arguing that it's not really appropriate here.
>
>>> AIUI, extracting the question-answer pairs one by one into a directory
>>> structure containing Markdown documents comes closer to creating data
>>> than reusing data.
>
>> I'm not sure whether I would want to debate that point or not. But
>> the main goal from my point of view is to have a maintainable FAQ.
>> I'm willing to break with the existing infrastructure if doing so will
>> make this goal easier.
>
> A fundamental misconception. Breaking with an existing infrastructure can
> by definition only make an implementation task *harder* because you will
> also have to build your own, new infrastructure then. That does not mean
> that the end result could not be *better*. But it requires more effort than
> building on something that already exists. As a result, it requires more
> man-hours to become at least adequate to what is intended to be replaced.
Nonsense. Writing a tool that automates a tedious manual job breaks
existing infrastructure. But it does not make the overall task
harder. To be sure, the initial investment will take some time to pay
back, but there can be a net gain from this.
My contention is that having multiple documents in a plain-text format
such as Markdown will make for an easier to maintain FAQ than having a
single XML document containing the entire contents. I simply think
that this:
What is the Document Object Model (DOM)?
========================================
The _Document Object Model_ (DOM) is a interface-based model for
`Document` objects. The DOM allows scripts to dynamically access
and update a document's content, style, and event handlers.
The DOM is _not_ part of the ECMAScript programming language.
...
is easier to maintain than this:
<CONTENT TITLE="What is the Document Object Model (DOM)?"
ID="dom" NUMID="2_9">
<P>The
<DFN>Document Object Model</DFN>
(DOM) is a interface-based model for
<ICODE>Document</ICODE>
objects. The DOM allows scripts to dynamically access and
update a document's content, style, and event handlers.
</P>
<P>The DOM is
<EM>not</EM>
part of the ECMAScript programming language.
</P>
<!-- ... -->
</CONTENT>
I also believe that with this technique an auto-poster will be easier
to maintain when necessary. I'm not sure there would be much
difference in a static FAQ generator. Either way should be fairly
simple. I do understand that there is slightly more structure in the
XML format, but I haven't found much of a need for that structure so
far from our FAQ; perhaps it's time to let it go.
> [ ... ]
Again, I want to reiterate that I am impressed with and gladdened by
your efforts. You and I have had many disagreements over my three
years here, but many more areas of agreement, and I'm hoping that
between the various proposals being discussed, we will end up with a
strengthened FAQ.
Cheers,
-- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 18:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3703984.pIQAaQtanI@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #17768 |
Scott Sauyet wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>> I'm not sure whether I would want to debate that point or not. But >>> the main goal from my point of view is to have a maintainable FAQ. >>> I'm willing to break with the existing infrastructure if doing so will >>> make this goal easier. >> >> A fundamental misconception. Breaking with an existing infrastructure >> can by definition only make an implementation task *harder* because you >> will also have to build your own, new infrastructure then. That does not >> mean that the end result could not be *better*. But it requires more >> effort than building on something that already exists. As a result, it >> requires more man-hours to become at least adequate to what is intended >> to be replaced. > > Nonsense. Writing a tool that automates a tedious manual job breaks > existing infrastructure. I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you? > But it does not make the overall task harder. > To be sure, the initial investment will take some time to pay > back, but there can be a net gain from this. Are you reading what I wrote? I was referring to the *implementation* task. > My contention is that having multiple documents in a plain-text format > such as Markdown will make for an easier to maintain FAQ than having a > single XML document containing the entire contents. I have already explained that it does not have to be that way with XML. Why are you insisting on the false dichotomy? > I also believe that with this technique an auto-poster will be easier > to maintain when necessary. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It will be easier to *post* the content if the content is already in a format that is *acceptable* for posting. PointedEars -- Sometimes, what you learn is wrong. If those wrong ideas are close to the root of the knowledge tree you build on a particular subject, pruning the bad branches can sometimes cause the whole tree to collapse. -- Mike Duffy in cljs, <news:Xns9FB6521286DB8invalidcom@94.75.214.39>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-19 11:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <22ca6ccc-0ddd-40df-b852-9d9c9f43c88e@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17775 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Scott Sauyet wrote: >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>>> [T]he main goal from my point of view is to have a maintainable FAQ. >>>> I'm willing to break with the existing infrastructure if doing so will >>>> make this goal easier. > >>> A fundamental misconception. Breaking with an existing infrastructure >>> can by definition only make an implementation task *harder* because you >>> will also have to build your own, new infrastructure then. That does not >>> mean that the end result could not be *better*. But it requires more >>> effort than building on something that already exists. As a result, it >>> requires more man-hours to become at least adequate to what is intended >>> to be replaced. > >> Nonsense. Writing a tool that automates a tedious manual job breaks >> existing infrastructure. > > I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you? Yes, I was discussing ways to make it easier to maintain the FAQ. >> But it does not make the overall task harder. >> To be sure, the initial investment will take some time to pay >> back, but there can be a net gain from this. > > Are you reading what I wrote? I was referring to the *implementation* task. So you're saying that because one portion of what I was suggesting might be more difficult to achieve than an alternative technique, even if in the long run its entirety would make things easier, I was laboring under a fundamental misconception? Again, nonsense. Moreover, even if you restrict the domain to extending an existing infrastructure versus creating a new infrastructure, there is no certainty that the former is less work than the latter. Anyone who has worked on ill-designed or ill-maintained systems knows that sometimes the most efficient way to add even a single feature is to throw them out entirely, and rebuild from scratch. >> My contention is that having multiple documents in a plain-text format >> such as Markdown will make for an easier to maintain FAQ than having a >> single XML document containing the entire contents. > > I have already explained that it does not have to be that way with XML. > Why are you insisting on the false dichotomy? You did mention say that such was a possibility. But what you've presented so far, at least when I looked at the SVN repository, was to keep the single XML document. Is this not the premise on which you're proceeding? I think it would be a step forward to create separate documents for each FAQ entry. But that seems contrary to the approach you've presented. Am I misunderstanding? > [ ... ] -- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript
csiph-web