Prev: getAttribute in IE
Next: Dynamic iframe caching problem workaround needed for Firefox
From: Erwin Moller on 21 Dec 2009 08:59
David Mark schreef:

<snip>


> "I was 100% serious about a ban concerning everything from CLJ.
> Please,
> original ideas/concerns/bug reports/test cases only."


>
> "Seems petty to me. There is a good test case there that illustrates
> the problem. I'm not going to reproduce it to shelter jQuery from CLJ"

ReMARKable statements.
Does c.l.j. equal 'David Mark' in their minds?
See what you did? Now they hate everybody in here! ;-)

Anyway, strange folk over there: This all sounds much like censorship to me.
They did ban you earlier from their fora, right?

Erwin Moller


--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
From: Matt Kruse on 21 Dec 2009 10:26
On Dec 19, 6:58 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip War & Peace: Javascript Edition]
> ...
> I guess shattered illusions can be painful.

Shattered illusions force a person to question themselves and their
beliefs, and protecting the ego is a primal survival instinct for most
people.

It's unfortunate.

Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 21 Dec 2009 11:34
On Dec 21, 10:26 am, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 6:58 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip War & Peace: Javascript Edition]
> > ...
> > I guess shattered illusions can be painful.
>
> Shattered illusions force a person to question themselves and their
> beliefs, and protecting the ego is a primal survival instinct for most
> people.
>
> It's unfortunate.
>

I agree and you were one of the few voices of reason in that
discussion. Believe it or not, I would have liked to have seen some
understanding come out of it.

I don't have any problem with you referring to my basic tests. But I
really think those guys need to come up with tests to suit their
particular "design" (and I don't want to see my wrappers copied
verbatim without understanding). :)
From: David Mark on 21 Dec 2009 11:38
On Dec 21, 8:59 am, Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...(a)spamyourself.com> wrote:
> David Mark schreef:
>
> <snip>
>
> > "I was 100% serious about a ban concerning everything from CLJ.
> > Please,
> > original ideas/concerns/bug reports/test cases only."
>
> > "Seems petty to me. There is a good test case there that illustrates
> > the problem. I'm not going to reproduce it to shelter jQuery from CLJ"
>
> ReMARKable statements.
> Does c.l.j. equal 'David Mark' in their minds?

Could be.

> See what you did? Now they hate everybody in here! ;-)

It's unfortunate. Feelings and logic don't always mix. I do get the
sense that they really hate anyone who contradicts their beliefs.

>
> Anyway, strange folk over there: This all sounds much like censorship to me.

Textbook. That's how incompetents hold on to power. :)

> They did ban you earlier from their fora, right?

You bet and it was over a related issue (e.g. attr doesn't work with
XML). And I _gave_ Resig the basic test for broken MSHTML attributes
over two years ago (here). So they can't cry that I never tried to
help. ;)
From: Scott Sauyet on 21 Dec 2009 11:39
On Dec 21, 8:59 am, Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...(a)spamyourself.com> wrote:
> David Mark schreef:
>> [quoting John Resig] "I was 100% serious about a ban concerning
>> everything from CLJ. Please, original ideas/concerns/bug reports/
>> test cases only."
>
>> "Seems petty to me. There is a good test case there that illustrates
>> the problem. I'm not going to reproduce it to shelter jQuery from CLJ"
>
> ReMARKable statements.
> [ ... ]
> Anyway, strange folk over there: This all sounds much like censorship to me.

A little additional context from that thread. Matt Kruse had pointed
the jQuery team to David Mark's attribute tests, and John Resig had
taken the first steps at incorporating them into the jQuery test
suite. Then, some posts before the above quote, Resig posted this:

| Just got word from Paul Irish that David Mark is refusing to
provide
| an open license for his attribute test suite - in fact he's
| threatening legal action against me and the Software Freedom
| Conservancy if we should "cop[y] one word or the tiniest aspect of
| the design". Naturally, that branch with the test suite has been
| completely deleted.

I have no idea if Resig's or Irish's understanding is correct. But
if David Mark actually made such a threat, it goes a long way
towards explaining, if not condoning, Resig's attitude.

-- Scott
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: getAttribute in IE
Next: Dynamic iframe caching problem workaround needed for Firefox