Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #13180 > unrolled thread

A way of displaying an active Script

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  A way of displaying an active Script Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-04-02 23:40 +0100
    Re: A way of displaying an active Script Dr.Kral@nyc.rr.com - 2012-04-03 14:58 -0400
      Re: A way of displaying an active Script Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-03 21:17 +0200
        Re: A way of displaying an active Script John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-04 15:50 +0100
          Re: A way of displaying an active Script Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-04-05 20:05 +0100
            Re: A way of displaying an active Script Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-04-06 10:39 +0200
              Re: A way of displaying an active Script "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-04-06 15:03 +0000
                Re: A way of displaying an active Script Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-04-06 21:20 +0200
                  Re: A way of displaying an active Script "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-04-06 19:45 +0000
                    [OT] Re: A way of displaying an active Script Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-04-06 22:39 +0200
                      Re: [OT] Re: A way of displaying an active Script "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-04-06 22:18 +0000
                        Re: [OT] Re: A way of displaying an active Script Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-04-07 00:40 +0200
                        Re: [OT] Re: A way of displaying an active Script Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-04-07 02:33 +0200
                        Re: [OT] Re: A way of displaying an active Script Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-04-07 19:25 +0100
                          Re: [OT] Re: A way of displaying an active Script "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-04-08 07:38 +0000
                    Re: A way of displaying an active Script Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-04-07 19:20 +0100
                      Re: A way of displaying an active Script "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-04-08 07:52 +0000
    Re: A way of displaying an active Script Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-04-03 12:44 -0700
      Re: A way of displaying an active Script Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-04-04 20:30 +0100
        Re: A way of displaying an active Script Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-04-05 01:16 +0200
          Re: A way of displaying an active Script Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-04-06 21:42 +0100
            Re: A way of displaying an active Script Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-04-07 01:11 +0200
              Re: A way of displaying an active Script Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-04-07 01:52 +0200
              Re: A way of displaying an active Script Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-04-08 19:48 +0100
                Re: A way of displaying an active Script "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-04-09 08:17 +0300
                  Re: A way of displaying an active Script Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-04-09 09:06 +0000
            Re: A way of displaying an active Script John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-07 11:21 +0100
              Re: A way of displaying an active Script Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-04-07 12:26 +0100
                Re: A way of displaying an active Script John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-04-07 15:16 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#13271

In comp.lang.javascript message <m2vclfgkal.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl>, Thu, 5
Apr 2012 01:16:18, Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> posted:

>Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> writes:
>
>> You can now look at <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-boxes.htm#SSE>
>
>There is no nice way to say this, so I'll say it my way:
>Next time, *please* warn people who are not color-blind. Above the URL,
>not below. TIA.

I wonder what that means (except for TIA).

>> [...] Yes, in FF11, the Title can be made visible just
>> above the Body's border
>
>The what?

The Title.  All the best Web pages have a Title, supplied within <title>
... </title> - validation calls for it.  The document element has, in at
least one browser, a read/write property addressable as document.title .

The Body is non-mandatory for Web pages, but generally present, and
addressable as document.body .  With CSS, it can be given a (slightly)
pretty border.

I did not write "by one display:block".
                    ===

Do not read <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/htmlhues.htm>.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk  Turnpike 6.05  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]

#13275

Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> writes:

> In comp.lang.javascript message <m2vclfgkal.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl>, Thu, 5
> Apr 2012 01:16:18, Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> posted:

I'm pretty sure I haven't read or posted anything in the de.* hierarchy
in recent years, still this doesn't look anything I'd like to be held
responsible for. I don't have a point, btw, I just like to claim space.

>> Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> You can now look at <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-boxes.htm#SSE>
>>
>> There is no nice way to say this, so I'll say it my way:
>> Next time, *please* warn people who are not color-blind. Above the
>> URL, not below. TIA.
>
> I wonder what that means (except for TIA).

It means either your or my color perception might be slightly off.

>>> [...] Yes, in FF11, the Title can be made visible just
>>> above the Body's border
>>
>>The what?
>
> The Title.  All the best Web pages have a Title, supplied within <title>
> ... </title> - validation calls for it.  The document element has, in at
> least one browser, a read/write property addressable as document.title .
>
> The Body is non-mandatory for Web pages,

What, according to you, is validation, and what kind of validation does
not call for a body element?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13276

Eric Bednarz wrote:

> Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> writes:
>> […] Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> posted:
>>> Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> writes:
>>>> You can now look at <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-boxes.htm#SSE>
>>> There is no nice way to say this, so I'll say it my way:
>>> Next time, *please* warn people who are not color-blind. Above the
>>> URL, not below. TIA.
>> I wonder what that means (except for TIA).
> 
> It means either your or my color perception might be slightly off.

IMHO there is nothing wrong with your color perception.  Black on lime next 
to magenta on light-grey next to black on yellow are certainly not very 
accessible color choices; not only for the color contrast between the layers 
being greater than between their fore- and background colors, but also for 
neglecting the meaning that the colors green and yellow are supposed to 
convey (correctness/go and warning/attention, respectively).  The least the 
author should do is sticking to the more eye-friendly pastel tones he used 
in the rest of the document.
 
>>>> [...] Yes, in FF11, the Title can be made visible just
>>>> above the Body's border
>>>
>>> The what?
>>
>> The Title.  All the best Web pages have a Title, supplied within <title>
>> ... </title> - validation calls for it.  The document element has, in at
>> least one browser, a read/write property addressable as document.title .
>>
>> The Body is non-mandatory for Web pages,
> 
> What, according to you, is validation, and what kind of validation does
> not call for a body element?

We can observe here the common misconception that if an HTML element's tags 
were not written it would not be there.  Contrary to e. g. the TITLE 
element, the start and end tag of the BODY element may be *O*mitted; the 
element must not:

| <!ENTITY % html.content "HEAD, BODY">
| 
| <!ELEMENT HTML O O (%html.content;)    -- document root element -->

| <!ENTITY % head.content "TITLE & BASE?">
| <!ENTITY % head.misc "SCRIPT|STYLE|META|LINK|OBJECT" -- repeatable head
| elements -->
| 
| <!ELEMENT HEAD O O (%head.content;) +(%head.misc;) -- document head -->

| <!ELEMENT TITLE - - (#PCDATA) -(%head.misc;) -- document title -->

| <!ELEMENT BODY O O (%block;|SCRIPT)+ +(INS|DEL) -- document body -->


PointedEars
-- 
> If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices"
> in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right...
Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field.
  -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13302

In comp.lang.javascript message <m28vi8cv65.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl>, Sat, 7
Apr 2012 01:11:46, Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> posted:

>Dr J R Stockton <reply1214@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> writes:

>> The Body is non-mandatory for Web pages,
>
>What, according to you, is validation, and what kind of validation does
>not call for a body element?

Not the useful TIDY, though that accepts a bodyless page.

I use Opera's context menu entry Validate nowadays; it accepts the
following as tentatively valid (4 warnings, none mentioning the body).
It submits to <http://validator.w3.org/>, the W3C Markup Validation
Service.

<!doctype HTML><title></title>

Be careful - I often test my assertions.

-- 
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk 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]

#13305

2012-04-08 21:48, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

> I use Opera's context menu entry Validate nowadays; it accepts the
> following as tentatively valid (4 warnings, none mentioning the body).
> It submits to <http://validator.w3.org/>, the W3C Markup Validation
> Service.
>
> <!doctype HTML><title></title>

This means using an experimental linter (confusingly called "validator") 
embedded into software that once was an SGML validator, then 
transmogrified to a polymorphic checker. The experimental linter itself 
emphasizes its experimental nature, and it purports to check against 
"HTML5" without specifying which of the various drafts is referred to. 
It often reflects drafts other than the current one.

Submitting the following document to SGML validation causes an error 
message, since the document contains a reportable markup error:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<title></title>

The error message is typically this:

"HTML" not finished but document ended

This refers to the lack of a BODY element. The start tag and the end tag 
are omissible but not the element. If you append, say, "!" to the 
document, it becomes valid, since now it has a BODY element with the 
character "!" as its content.

Browsers could not care less. They do not apply SGML parsing but their 
own tag slurpers. They still imply a BODY element (with empty content) 
in the invalid case.

ObJavaScript: This implies that document.body is defined (with empty 
string as its content). However, this has little practical impact, as 
you can hardly do anything useful with such a document anyway. So this 
discussion has been rather pointless here (it would have been 
theoretically interesting in another group), so now that even the 
off-topic theory has been explained, there's no point in continuing 
unless you wish to keep feeding you-know-who.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13306

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> [...] there's no point in continuing unless you wish to keep feeding you-know-who.

Voldemort?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13287

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 at 21:42:37, in comp.lang.javascript, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

  <snip>
>All the best Web pages have a Title,
  <snip>

I've seen an HTML page that had
  <title> No title </title>

Oxford scholarship exam question : Does it have a title or doesn't it ?

  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13289

In article 
<ihV+rcDBVBgPFwwh@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD>,
 John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 at 21:42:37, in comp.lang.javascript, Dr J R Stockton
> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
> >All the best Web pages have a Title,
>   <snip>
> 
> I've seen an HTML page that had
>   <title> No title </title>
> 
> Oxford scholarship exam question : Does it have a title or doesn't it ?

Of course it does.

-- 
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]

#13290

On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 at 12:26:02, in comp.lang.javascript, Tim Streater
wrote:
>In article <ihV+rcDBVBgPFwwh@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD
>>,
>John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 at 21:42:37, in comp.lang.javascript, Dr J R Stockton
>> wrote:
>>    <snip>
>> >All the best Web pages have a Title,
>>   <snip>
>>  I've seen an HTML page that had
>>   <title> No title </title>
>>  Oxford scholarship exam question : Does it have a title or doesn't
>>it ?
>
>Of course it does.

How can you be so sure it's lying ?

  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web