Prev: Computer Techs Wanted
Next: move div by drag etc.
From: Hans-Georg Michna on 9 Oct 2009 04:29
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:00:44 -0700, Garrett Smith wrote:

>In context of a javascript FAQ, capitalized "Date" seems obvious to me.
>Are there others who feel it is confusing?

I did understand the capitalized Date, but I admit that I also
stumbled over the slight potential for misunderstanding.

I guess this cannot be argued very well, because the perception
varies. I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere.

Hans-Georg
From: Richard Cornford on 9 Oct 2009 07:06
On Oct 9, 9:24 am, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:08:28 +0100, Richard Cornford wrote:
>> What would the documentation for a DOM implementation have
>> to do with javascript behaviour?
>
> Sorry, in this case it would, of course, be the documentation
> of the JavaScript implementation or perhaps any general
> specification of the language.

No, in this case it is the language specification. There is no reason
for looking at implementation documentation unless the subject of
interest is a language extension that is present in that
implementation (and you still need ECMA 262 in order to know what is
or is not an extension), or an ECMAScript implementation bug. Language
extensions tend to get in the way of cross-browser scripting, and
implementation bugs don't tent to be usefully (or meaningfully)
documented, so there is really very little reason for being interested
in implementation documentation at all.

Richard.
From: Dr J R Stockton on 9 Oct 2009 13:46
In comp.lang.javascript message <kjosc512pir1hatjch6i65oeg3pudbbeuh(a)4ax.
com>, Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:34:58, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
georgNoEmailPlease(a)michna.com> posted:

>thanks. I understand all that. I just cannot find it in any
>official specification.

Then you should read newsgroup FAQ section 2.1.

>If there is any place in the official documentation, like the
>Gecko DOM docs,

Those are implementation specifications, and not for JavaScript. Would
you go to an S-Bahn station hoping to see the Pope at home there?


>But it is well possible that I have overlooked the relevant
>documentation or severely misunderstood it. On the other hand,
>if I misunderstand it, then some others will also misunderstand
>it.

It is in the nature of a Formal Standard that it is unavoidably hard to
understand. Especially by those who have not read it.

If you have visited any JavaScript portion of my Web site, you will have
had an opportunity of seeing a link to the section's index page (as in
the sig below); and that includes links to the formal JavaScript
standards.

Googling for JavaScript Standard provides clues, as does
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript>.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk IE7 FF3 Op9 Sf3
news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
From: Hans-Georg Michna on 9 Oct 2009 16:43
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 04:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Richard Cornford wrote:

>On Oct 9, 9:24 am, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:08:28 +0100, Richard Cornford wrote:
>>> What would the documentation for a DOM implementation have
>>> to do with javascript behaviour?

>> Sorry, in this case it would, of course, be the documentation
>> of the JavaScript implementation or perhaps any general
>> specification of the language.

>No, in this case it is the language specification. There is no reason
>for looking at implementation documentation unless the subject of
>interest is a language extension that is present in that
>implementation (and you still need ECMA 262 in order to know what is
>or is not an extension), or an ECMAScript implementation bug. Language
>extensions tend to get in the way of cross-browser scripting, and
>implementation bugs don't tent to be usefully (or meaningfully)
>documented, so there is really very little reason for being interested
>in implementation documentation at all.

Yes, I see your point. I take it that that is the normative
documentation.

Hans-Georg
From: Hans-Georg Michna on 9 Oct 2009 16:45
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:46:32 +0100, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

>If you have visited any JavaScript portion of my Web site, you will have
>had an opportunity of seeing a link to the section's index page (as in
>the sig below); and that includes links to the formal JavaScript
>standards.

Have been reading your web site. It contains a lot of very
useful information. Thanks!

Hans-Georg
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: Computer Techs Wanted
Next: move div by drag etc.