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 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <yLaapAKYG4wQFw8u@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> |
| In reply to | #17548 |
In comp.lang.javascript message <1MudnQassYPuqlzNnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@earthl ink.com>, Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:24:54, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> posted: >On 12/6/2012 3:06 PM, Dr J R Stockton wrote: >... >> A FAQ maintainer needs to be literate in ordinary good English. >... >> The first of those rules out almost everyone educated in what has in the >> past been part of the British Empire and Colonies, except for some >> Britons over 65 years old, and rules out those from large countries >> inside and outside Europe. It admits those from small European >> countries like Denmark & Norway. > >Hmmm. I like to think I'm reasonably literate in my native language, >despite being only 63 and educated, except for my doctorate, in England. I must confess that, when I wrote that, I was thinking predominantly of the males; but I did write "almost everyone" with you in mind. It is marginally possible that I actually assisted in providing your formal education. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via Homepage, Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Food expiry ambiguities: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/date2k-3.htm#Food>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-07 01:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k9rd9j$8j0$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #17545 |
On 2012-12-07 00:06, Dr J R Stockton wrote: > A FAQ maintainer needs to be literate in ordinary good English. ... > The first of those rules out almost everyone educated in what has in the > past been part of the British Empire and Colonies, except for some > Britons over 65 years old, and rules out those from large countries > inside and outside Europe. It admits those from small European > countries like Denmark & Norway. You're not helping. ...unless you're an British senior and want to volunteer as FAQ maintainer. In which case I would, perhaps surprisingly, prefer Thomas Lahn. Mostly because your code is utterly unreadable and thus not suitable as FAQ content (this includes your code examples in the current FAQ). And because this is an international group, and your constant xenophobic remarks are inappropriate, to say the least. - stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 22:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <timstreater-C93C57.22243405122012@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17505 |
In article <alpine.DEB.2.02.1212051605560.2617@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain>, Matt McDonald <matt@fortybelow.ca> wrote: > Pedantry *is* necessary for technical depth. While there may be some truth to this, PointyHead manages to adopt a rude, sneering, and condescending tone in its application. Pedantry needs to be applied *with care* to avoid these faults, and PointyHead is careless - apparently on purpose. > Though I think that group veterans who already know of the > "javascript" distinction should not be lectured, I think that > novices definitely need to be aware that JavaScript is an ECMAScript > implementation. That is a fundamental point. That's as may be. However I consider the emphasis on the capitalisation to be trivially unimportant. A more thoughtful and better mannered person would simply do it correctly in any reply and just leave it at that. > Thomas is definitely right to emphasise it. Not in the way he does it; see above. -- 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 | Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 23:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k9oi93$cgr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17505 |
W dniu 2012-12-05 22:56, Matt McDonald pisze: [...] > 3. Cezary Tomczyk, and [...] I wouldn't say that I am something like expert, but if I can help in many parts then why not :-) If place for site is needed then I can share some "part" of my current virtual server. This is just by the way. [...] > I agree that the group can be more conciliatory. However, in my > experience, many "newcomers" who have left the group have > misinterpreted the "tone" of notable members. Pedantry *is* > necessary for technical depth. Few, if any, communities exist on the I agree as for pedantry, but the content must be understandable and must contains _working examples_. Perfectly for me would be nice to be able to add comments on every example. Something like "code review" which can also improve example quality and from comments user can also learn because of different points of view. > Internet that can discuss JavaScript and client-side development at > the level of technical depth that this group can. I have participated > in various fora discussing JavaScript over the past three years and, > none have shared the expertise of this group. StackOverflow, Reddit, > and ##javascript (Freenode IRC) have all failed. I wouldn't say so badly about StackOverflow. I saw there many great explanations with examples. Well, Thomas also share his knowledge on StackOverflow :-) > Though I think that group veterans who already know of the > "javascript" distinction should not be lectured, I think that > novices definitely need to be aware that JavaScript is an ECMAScript > implementation. That is a fundamental point. Thomas is definitely > right to emphasise it. Then it's _maybe better_ to define it once at the beginning and then later use just "JavaScript". -- Cezary Tomczyk http://www.ctomczyk.pl/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-07 00:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k9ra4t$33a$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #17508 |
On 2012-12-05 23:36, Cezary Tomczyk wrote: > W dniu 2012-12-05 22:56, Matt McDonald pisze: >> Though I think that group veterans who already know of the >> "javascript" distinction should not be lectured, I think that >> novices definitely need to be aware that JavaScript is an ECMAScript >> implementation. That is a fundamental point. Thomas is definitely >> right to emphasise it. > > Then it's _maybe better_ to define it once at the beginning and then > later use just "JavaScript". This would be vastly preferable to writing "ECMAScript implementations" throughout the whole FAQ. Unfortunately, judging from the many discussions we've had about this topic, Thomas Lahn will not be convinced to suffer such an inexact formulation in the FAQ. I'm afraid that this (and other similar cases) will make any text he writes technically correct, but unnecessarily hard to read, especially for newcomers. In addition, it will fail to provide the right keyword for search engines. And it _is_ unnecessary, seeing how every major product which uses a variant of JavaScript just calls it JavaScript - that includes the browsers (Safari, Opera, Chrome/Chromium, Konqueror, Internet Explorer*, and of course Firefox) as well as stand-alone and server-side products like Node.js, CoffeeScript, Rhino, or Nashorn. Adobe, on the other hand, calls the scripting language it uses in Flash ActionScript. Technically, ActionScript is also an ECMAScript implementation, but it's sufficiently different from what everybody (except Thomas Lahn) calls JavaScript that it is always called by its proper name, and never lumped in the same group as JavaScript. In cases where we have to make a distinction, it would be much more useful to state the product name (and possibly product version). I'm also not a big fan of using different capitalization to distinguish JavaScript (as authored by Mozilla) from javascript or Javascript (the group of JavaScript-like languages). This convention is only followed by some cl.javascript subscribers, and virtually unknown outside the group. As such, the potential for confusion is greater than the minor gain in precision. I would much rather use JavaScript as a catch-all term, like it is used outside the group, and be more specific where required. Lastly, there is also the minor issue of "JavaScript" being a trademark. The JavaScript trademark currently belongs to Oracle (after Netscape and Sun). Neither of these companies have ever (to my knowledge) objected to its use in any other software, much less filed suit. This should not concern the FAQ, other than maybe mentioning it. - stefan * IE calls the relevant setting "Active Scripting", but only because it supports more than one scripting language (JavaScript and VBScript). On the MSDN site, Microsoft just calls it JavaScript, like everybody else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-07 10:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <SNKdnc3rmdG7s1zNnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au> |
| In reply to | #17539 |
And so under the weight of recriminations, with both sides claiming the moral high ground, the FAQ passed away quietly shortly before Christmas of 2012. Andrew Poulos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 16:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <Kq-dnYu4FMJKrFzNnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #17540 |
On 12/6/2012 3:45 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote: > And so under the weight of recriminations, with both sides claiming the > moral high ground, the FAQ passed away quietly shortly before Christmas > of 2012. I hope not. We just need some flexibility. The fact that I have some style disagreements with Thomas Lahn does not keep me from being willing to help any way I can if he becomes the FAQ-maintainer. Patricia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-07 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <CXUWOXPgjlwQFwLt@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> |
| In reply to | #17542 |
In comp.lang.javascript message <Kq-dnYu4FMJKrFzNnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@earthl ink.com>, Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:01:00, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> posted: >On 12/6/2012 3:45 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote: >> And so under the weight of recriminations, with both sides claiming the >> moral high ground, the FAQ passed away quietly shortly before Christmas >> of 2012. > >I hope not. We just need some flexibility. > >The fact that I have some style disagreements with Thomas Lahn does not >keep me from being willing to help any way I can if he becomes the >FAQ-maintainer. You will be wasting your time, because the group will become generally useless with him as FAQ maintainer, and because your help will have very little effect. You would be like the Dalai Lama advising the Kaiser. It would be better for you to do the job yourself, unhindered. -- (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 | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 10:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <timstreater-A3C6F3.10170508122012@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17580 |
In article <CXUWOXPgjlwQFwLt@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <Kq-dnYu4FMJKrFzNnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@earthl > ink.com>, Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:01:00, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> > posted: > > >On 12/6/2012 3:45 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote: > >> And so under the weight of recriminations, with both sides claiming the > >> moral high ground, the FAQ passed away quietly shortly before Christmas > >> of 2012. > > > >I hope not. We just need some flexibility. > > > >The fact that I have some style disagreements with Thomas Lahn does not > >keep me from being willing to help any way I can if he becomes the > >FAQ-maintainer. > > You will be wasting your time, because the group will become generally > useless with him as FAQ maintainer, and because your help will have very > little effect. You would be like the Dalai Lama advising the Kaiser. > It would be better for you to do the job yourself, unhindered. The FAQ would certainly become desiccated, unreadable, and thereby useless. -- 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 | Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-07 01:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k9rc8p$6vk$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #17540 |
On 2012-12-07 00:45, Andrew Poulos wrote: > And so under the weight of recriminations, with both sides claiming the > moral high ground, the FAQ passed away quietly shortly before Christmas > of 2012. Oh, stop the drama. The FAQ hasn't been edited in over two years. A few more days, or weeks, of discussing its future won't make it any deader than it is today. There are some legitimate concerns over appointing somebody as maintainer who has a tendency to polarize the group, and whose contributions are often seen as rude or impolite. On the other hand, nobody else has stepped forward, so unless we can agree on a wiki (or similar), you'll get your new maintainer. - stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-07 23:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k9tq7p$ab7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17539 |
W dniu 2012-12-07 00:35, Stefan Weiss pisze: > On 2012-12-05 23:36, Cezary Tomczyk wrote: [...] >> Then it's _maybe better_ to define it once at the beginning and then >> later use just "JavaScript". > > This would be vastly preferable to writing "ECMAScript implementations" > throughout the whole FAQ. Unfortunately, judging from the many > discussions we've had about this topic, Thomas Lahn will not be > convinced to suffer such an inexact formulation in the FAQ. I think that nobody should be excluded. Instead of that FAQ may have something like "Advanced section" where Thomas Lahn (or anybody who want) can write in more deeply details. > I'm afraid that this (and other similar cases) will make any text he > writes technically correct, but unnecessarily hard to read, especially > for newcomers. In addition, it will fail to provide the right keyword > for search engines. Like I said: "advanced section" should be alsoincluded. > Adobe, on the other hand, calls the scripting language it uses in Flash > ActionScript. Technically, ActionScript is also an ECMAScript > implementation, but it's sufficiently different from what everybody > (except Thomas Lahn) calls JavaScript that it is always called by its > proper name, and never lumped in the same group as JavaScript. Well, this sentence should also FAQ include :-) > I'm also not a big fan of using different capitalization to distinguish > JavaScript (as authored by Mozilla) from javascript or Javascript (the > group of JavaScript-like languages). This convention is only followed by > some cl.javascript subscribers, and virtually unknown outside the group. > As such, the potential for confusion is greater than the minor gain in > precision. I would much rather use JavaScript as a catch-all term, like > it is used outside the group, and be more specific where required. Personally I think that we should use one name everywhere - I like "JavaScript". > Lastly, there is also the minor issue of "JavaScript" being a trademark. > The JavaScript trademark currently belongs to Oracle (after Netscape and > Sun). Neither of these companies have ever (to my knowledge) objected to > its use in any other software, much less filed suit. This should not > concern the FAQ, other than maybe mentioning it. I wouldn't be worried about that at this moment, but those informations should be also included in FAQ. BTW Instead of long discussion it would be better to just create wiki and start with content. I am sure that many new things will come during creating content. On the other hand if Thomas will accept that not all people must be the same as he and FAQ can include "advanced section" then everything should be fine. -- Cezary Tomczyk http://www.ctomczyk.pl/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 04:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8192572.z9YG5XmbkK@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #17578 |
Cezary Tomczyk wrote: > On the other hand if Thomas will accept that not all people must be the > same as he and FAQ can include "advanced section" then everything should > be fine. The term “javascript” (or “Javascript”) is a misnomer, invented by people (or a single person) who do not know better or do not care about using an unambiguous term that promotes learning. The term is also inherently misleading, and it it is currently used misleadingly in the FAQ. Worse, the FAQ currently advertises it as being *the* term used for all "ECMAScript dialects", which is not only wishful thinking on part of its author(s), not substantiated by *any* solid reference, but also just more nonsense: This definition directly contradicts the section that follows, where the FAQ says correctly that “JScript is Microsoft's *implementation* of ECMAScript.” (Several regulars know that JavaScript was Netscape's, and is now Mozilla's implementation of ECMAScript, and that JavaScript and JScript differ is certain important respects. But the FAQ currently fails to mention that and the several other important implementations.) Because if anything, there are *implementations* of ECMAScript or, for short, ECMAScript implementations. These are the correct umbrella terms, and knowing them is helping to understand why the standard on which the programming languages are based and which is informed by them at the same time – the ECMAScript Language Specification –, is talking about what "a conforming implementation of ECMAScript" is supposed to be like. If you have ever asked yourself why “javascript” is working like it does, and why *seemingly* the same language works differently in a different environment (DOM issues aside), *there* is where you can find your correct answer *even though* there is implementation-dependent behavior and there are different DOM APIs on top of that. I do not intend to back off from that position because my research shows that to be the correct and a very useful approach (as several users of and contributors to the ECMAScript Support Matrix know). And I seriously doubt that anyone before me has investigated this matter thoroughly enough to make an informed statement about it. That said, I am well aware that it would be impractical to replace all occurrences of “javascript” with “ECMAScript implementations” in the FAQ. In fact, as the term “javascript” is used too broadly in the FAQ, a simple replacement would certainly result in a wrong description in some cases. I have neither the intention nor the inclination to do that; although undoubtedly correct in many cases, it would make the FAQ harder to maintain and to read. The solution I see to this problem at this point is very simple and I think very logical: Remove all those misleading, superfluous occurrences of “javascript” from the FAQ, and replace that with a *correct*, *unambiguous*, *well-defined* umbrella term *only if necessary for clarification*. This newsgroup and this FAQ is about a certain topic, which could be subsumed as "ECMAScript implementations (such as JavaScript and JScript) and their applications (such as DOMs)" (although the newsgroup is named differently, for *historical* as well as practical reasons), and unless a specific implementation needs to be mentioned or the ubiquity of a feature needs to be emphasized, no umbrella term needs to be used at all. 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 | John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 15:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aZSMRoJLN2wQFw49@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> |
| In reply to | #17593 |
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 at 04:46:41, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: <snip> >The term “javascript” (or “Javascript”) is a misnomer, invented by >people >(or a single person) You don't mean me, of course, as my meaning for the word is different from the one currently in the FAQ. > who do not know better Common abuse. > or do not care about using an >unambiguous term that promotes learning. That's probably a libel. >The term is also inherently >misleading, No evidence. >and it it is currently used misleadingly in the FAQ. Oh! Wow! The FAQ needs a revision by a FAQ maintainer! >Worse, the FAQ currently advertises it as being *the* term used for all >"ECMAScript dialects", which is not only wishful thinking on part of its >author(s), not substantiated by *any* solid reference, but also just more >nonsense: You've misread it. <FAQENTRY> In addition, what you've missed is that the last paragraph in section 2.1 needs two changes. First, it should make it clear that the scope of the word is *this document*. It's not claiming to be an ISO standard. (You do know what 'scope' means, don't you?) Second, it needs to say that it covers both the core language and the host environment (ECMA 262 meaning) of a variety of products. It must do that otherwise it can't discuss cookies and windows, to name but two. > This definition directly contradicts the section that follows, >where the FAQ says correctly that “JScript is Microsoft's *implementation* >of ECMAScript.” (Several regulars know that JavaScript was Netscape's, and >is now Mozilla's implementation of ECMAScript, and that JavaScript and >JScript differ is certain important respects. But the FAQ currently fails >to mention that and the several other important implementations.) Make the FAQ shorter, not longer. >Because if anything, there are *implementations* of ECMAScript or, for >short, ECMAScript implementations. These are the correct umbrella terms, No, see above. >and knowing them is helping to understand why the standard on which the >programming languages are based and which is informed by them at the same >time – the ECMAScript Language Specification –, is talking about what "a >conforming implementation of ECMAScript" is supposed to be like. If you >have ever asked yourself why “javascript” is working like it does, and why >*seemingly* the same language works differently in a different environment >(DOM issues aside), *there* is where you can find your correct answer *even >though* there is implementation-dependent behavior and there are different >DOM APIs on top of that. > >I do not intend to back off from that position because my research shows >that to be the correct and a very useful approach (as several users of and >contributors to the ECMAScript Support Matrix know). And I seriously doubt >that anyone before me has investigated this matter thoroughly enough to make >an informed statement about it. > >That said, I am well aware that it would be impractical to replace all >occurrences of “javascript” with “ECMAScript implementations” in the >FAQ. ... especially when talking about cookies, windows, modifying the current page, etc. >In fact, as the term “javascript” is used too broadly in the FAQ, a simple >replacement would certainly result in a wrong description in some cases. >I have neither the intention nor the inclination to do that; although >undoubtedly correct in many cases, it would make the FAQ harder to maintain >and to read. > >The solution I see to this problem at this point is very simple and I think >very logical: Remove all those misleading, superfluous occurrences of >“javascript” from the FAQ, You've failed to make a case for regarding the occurrences as misleading. <FAQENTRY> It's true that some occurrences are superfluous and could be removed, as in sec 2.4. > and replace that with a *correct*, *unambiguous*, >*well-defined* umbrella term *only if necessary for clarification*. This >newsgroup and this FAQ is about a certain topic, which could be subsumed as >"ECMAScript implementations (such as JavaScript and JScript) and their >applications (such as DOMs)" The DOMs are not 'applications'. As ECMA 262, sec 4.1, Web Scripting, says "Each Web browser and server that supports ECMAScript supplies its own host environment, completing the ECMAScript execution environment." >(although the newsgroup is named differently, >for *historical* as well as practical reasons), You can't call it comp.lang.ecmascript because that would make the DOMs off topic. > and unless a specific >implementation needs to be mentioned or the ubiquity of a feature needs to >be emphasized, no umbrella term needs to be used at all. Not always. Saying "What books are recommended for the subject of this FAQ?" would be daft. John -- John Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 09:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <i5SdneC6so_E717NnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #17593 |
On 12/7/2012 7:46 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Cezary Tomczyk wrote: > >> On the other hand if Thomas will accept that not all people must be the >> same as he and FAQ can include "advanced section" then everything should >> be fine. > > The term “javascript” (or “Javascript”) is a misnomer, invented by people > (or a single person) who do not know better or do not care about using an > unambiguous term that promotes learning. The term is also inherently > misleading, and it it is currently used misleadingly in the FAQ. As a mathematics student, I learned a very specific meaning for the word "function". By that standard, most things declared as "function" in JavaScript are not functions at all. They have side effects. They don't necessarily return the same result for a fixed set of arguments. They may not even return a value. I *hate* the way "function" is used in many programming languages, including JavaScript. Despite my feelings on the subject, in order to communicate with other programmers I use "function" to refer something that has little or no resemblance to a mathematical function, if it is a function according to the normal terminology people use in connection with the programming language I'm talking about. If you want to know the correct meaning of a word you need to look at how people really use it. If you want to know the correct meaning of a technical term in some field, look at how people working in that field use it. > The solution I see to this problem at this point is very simple and I think > very logical: Remove all those misleading, superfluous occurrences of > “javascript” from the FAQ, and replace that with a *correct*, *unambiguous*, > *well-defined* umbrella term *only if necessary for clarification*. This > newsgroup and this FAQ is about a certain topic, which could be subsumed as > "ECMAScript implementations (such as JavaScript and JScript) and their > applications (such as DOMs)" (although the newsgroup is named differently, > for *historical* as well as practical reasons), and unless a specific > implementation needs to be mentioned or the ubiquity of a feature needs to > be emphasized, no umbrella term needs to be used at all. I have three objections to that strategy: 1. The train has left the station. "JavaScript" is the name of the language, in ordinary discourse among programmers, Wikipedia articles, and numerous books. 2. Writing a FAQ without using a simple noun to refer to its subject is going to result in very unnatural, unreadable prose, probably with excessive use of the passive voice. 3. It would be good for search engines to see the FAQ as being primarily about JavaScript, and to return hits on the FAQ for questions it answers. The best way of getting that effect is to use "JavaScript" throughout. Patricia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Good Guy <hello.world@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k9vurn$3m9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17603 |
On 08/12/2012 17:00, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > As a mathematics student, I learned a very specific meaning for the word > "function". By that standard, most things declared as "function" in > JavaScript are not functions at all. They have side effects. They don't > necessarily return the same result for a fixed set of arguments. They > may not even return a value. I *hate* the way "function" is used in many > programming languages, including JavaScript. > > Despite my feelings on the subject, in order to communicate with other > programmers I use "function" to refer something that has little or no > resemblance to a mathematical function, if it is a function according to > the normal terminology people use in connection with the programming > language I'm talking about. > > If you want to know the correct meaning of a word you need to look at > how people really use it. If you want to know the correct meaning of a > technical term in some field, look at how people working in that field > use it. > > Pascal and now Delphi has what is called Functions and Procedures. Procedures returns the values while functions stores and calculates variables which can be returned by pascal's procedures. Unfortunately, colleges don't teach pascal or delphi and so the knowledge of programming is declining among new entrants to the computer industry. It is shame that kids these days only know how to use packages without knowing how they are created. Students in Eastern Europe , Brazil and India are seriously learning the Programming languages and they are better placed to exploit the job markets for programmers. Unless education is changed drastically, Western Europe and North America will always remain behind in Research & innovations. I am told that American companies have given up competing with China so all you get now is Made in China!!! -- Good Guy Website: http://mytaxsite.co.uk Website: http://html-css.co.uk Email: http://mytaxsite.co.uk/contact-us
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 20:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1607168.6DMhTUkglM@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #17603 |
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 12/7/2012 7:46 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The solution I see to this problem at this point is very simple and I
>> think very logical: Remove all those misleading, superfluous occurrences
>> of “javascript” from the FAQ, and replace that with a *correct*,
>> *unambiguous*,
>> *well-defined* umbrella term *only if necessary for clarification*. This
>> newsgroup and this FAQ is about a certain topic, which could be subsumed
>> as "ECMAScript implementations (such as JavaScript and JScript) and their
>> applications (such as DOMs)" (although the newsgroup is named
>> differently, for *historical* as well as practical reasons), and unless a
>> specific implementation needs to be mentioned or the ubiquity of a
>> feature needs to be emphasized, no umbrella term needs to be used at all.
>
> I have three objections to that strategy:
>
> 1. The train has left the station. "JavaScript" is the name of the
> language, in ordinary discourse among programmers, Wikipedia articles,
> and numerous books.
Most programmers are incompetent; as a result, Wikipedia articles and most
books about this topic are full of rather stupid mistakes.
The ad-hoc invented term “javascript” (or “Javascript”) is being used
whereever it *seems* to fit, be it meaning JavaScript[tm], JScript,
ECMAScript, or the DOM and other APIs. It gives the reader the illusion of
a single entity. Which is actually _not_ helping beginners.
> 2. Writing a FAQ without using a simple noun to refer to its subject is
> going to result in very unnatural, unreadable prose, probably with
> excessive use of the passive voice.
I do not think so.
> 3. It would be good for search engines to see the FAQ as being primarily
> about JavaScript, and to return hits on the FAQ for questions it
> answers. The best way of getting that effect is to use "JavaScript"
> throughout.
There are better ways to ensure good positioning in search results than
excessive repetition of an ad-hoc invented ambiguous term in arbitrary
context.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-09 11:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ka1njo$tca$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17606 |
W dniu 2012-12-08 20:53, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn pisze: [...] > Most programmers are incompetent;[...] What is your definition of "incompetent programmer"? -- Cezary Tomczyk http://www.ctomczyk.pl/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 23:31 +0200 |
| Subject | Functions in JavaScript vs. mathematics & the name "JavaScript" |
| Message-ID | <ka0bk1$6gs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17603 |
2012-12-08 19:00, Patricia Shanahan wrote under Re: Maintainer of the FAQ: > As a mathematics student, I learned a very specific meaning for the word > "function". By that standard, most things declared as "function" in > JavaScript are not functions at all. They have side effects. They don't > necessarily return the same result for a fixed set of arguments. They > may not even return a value. I *hate* the way "function" is used in many > programming languages, including JavaScript. That's an interesting issue, far more interesting than the original thread. I have never seen this as an issue, but this is probably just because I grew up into programming and took it more or less granted that "function" is just a name used for either all subprograms or subprograms of a specific kind in some languages. And languages that have e.g. "subroutine" vs. "function" have just the difference that a function returns a value, a subroutine does not. But "function" in programming is really rather different from mathematical function. Not completely different; there is some resemblance. > Despite my feelings on the subject, in order to communicate with other > programmers I use "function" to refer something that has little or no > resemblance to a mathematical function, It's just different use for "function" as a term, and both the mathematical term and the programming term are rather different from the meaning of "function" in common language. > If you want to know the correct meaning of a word you need to look at > how people really use it. If you want to know the correct meaning of a > technical term in some field, look at how people working in that field > use it. Well, mostly. There is a point at which we need to regard specifications as authoritative. But this only applies to terms defined in specifications, and only when the specification is generally accepted. Now, regarding "JavaScript",... > 1. The train has left the station. "JavaScript" is the name of the > language, in ordinary discourse among programmers, Wikipedia articles, > and numerous books. Indeed it is. Or it is a name for a group of languages. It is misleading to claim that those languages are "implementations of ECMAScript", since JavaScript predates ECMAScript, an implementation need not claim conformance to the ECMAScript standard, and the whole idea of looking actual languages and implementations (two different things!) as implementations of a standard is very narrow-minded - and practically wrong, since implementations may in fact differ from the standard. It is much more useful and natural to use a noun to refer to a vaguely defined group of languages and then discuss, as one of many interesting questions, their relationship with the standard. That's what we normally do with computer languages. > 2. Writing a FAQ without using a simple noun to refer to its subject is > going to result in very unnatural, unreadable prose, probably with > excessive use of the passive voice. And it would be rather odd to do so in a FAQ for a group named comp.lang.javascript. > 3. It would be good for search engines to see the FAQ as being primarily > about JavaScript, and to return hits on the FAQ for questions it > answers. The best way of getting that effect is to use "JavaScript" > throughout. Yes, though it seems that the FAQ will either slowly degrade or rapidly turn to nonsense, depending on the outcome of the maintainer issue. It does not generally do too well in Google searches, and I'm not sure whether this is a bad thing. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-09 02:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA123D6319C149invalidcom@94.75.214.39> |
| In reply to | #17603 |
Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote in news:i5SdneC6so_E717NnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.com: > As a mathematics student, I learned a very specific meaning for the > word "function". ... I *hate* the way "function" is used > in many programming languages, including JavaScript. As a physics student, I formerly felt much the same about the use of the term "quantum leap" by the general populace. > If you want to know the correct meaning of a word you need to look at > how people really use it. If you want to know the correct meaning of a > technical term in some field, look at how people working in that field > use it. As you say, we just have to change the definition of a term when dealing with those who do not fully understand the details. I am not bothered anymore about journalists using the term "quantum leap" to describe a sociological innovation. I am guessing that what Thomas is concerned about is how difficult it is to provide one set of documentation that can be simultaneously useful to both experts and neophytes. I would suggest using certain terms (like "Javascript") always as a hyperlink to a page that explains any nuances in greater detail. -- http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 23:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a120a70-ecb6-4e59-8ed1-2a60ce74c0fe@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17620 |
Mike Duffy wrote: > I am guessing that what Thomas is concerned about is how difficult it is to > provide one set of documentation that can be simultaneously useful to both > experts and neophytes. > > I would suggest using certain terms (like "Javascript") always as a > hyperlink to a page that explains any nuances in greater detail. I'm afraid that might be a disaster. First of all, when posted to the group, it's plain text, so a hyperlink would probably look like a footnote; do we really want a footnote on every instance of one of the most important words in our FAQ? And even in HTML, that would simply be link clutter in my opinion. I think an early "What is Javascript?" question, perhaps paired with a question about ECMAScript should cover this, and explain that the remainder of the FAQ would stick with the popular usage unless the context demands more specificity. -- Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript
csiph-web