knowing what and when to feature test
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - How do I make a suggestion? (2010-01-17)
Next: Passing primitive variables by reference in JavaScript
From: Eric Bednarz on 23 Jan 2010 16:20 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: > Eric Bednarz wrote: >> 'HTML 4' is a W3C recommendation, the only relevant HTML *standard* is >> ISO/IEC 15445:2000. > > Of course not. W3C Recommendations (with capital R) You seem to have created a nice little RPG world there full of ad hoc rules. Is downloadable content available? > are considered Web > standards. > > <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/> > <http://www.w3.org/standards/> > <http://www.w3.org/standards/about.html> > <http://www.w3.org/standards/faq.html#std> <http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/listings/links_international.html> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards> > <http://webstandardsgroup.org/standards/> > <http://www.opera.com/company/education/curriculum/> > <http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/> > <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/grokwebstandards/> > <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/using_web_standards_in_your_web_pages> > <http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/developing_with_web_standards/> So you read blogs and stuff. Good for you. > (Want more proof? Google is your friend. [psf 6.1]) Google is not my friend, as long as I have a choice, but thank you. I suppose you mean I should use the results of random Google searches to educate myself; while I appreciate this insight in your process of knowledge acquisition, I'd rather stick to consulting relevant resources.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 23 Jan 2010 19:43 Eric Bednarz wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: >> Eric Bednarz wrote: >>> 'HTML 4' is a W3C recommendation, the only relevant HTML *standard* is >>> ISO/IEC 15445:2000. >> Of course not. W3C Recommendations (with capital R) > > You seem to have created a nice little RPG world there full of ad hoc > rules. It is important that Recommendation is written with a capital `R' here because it is not just any recommendation but a proper name that has a certain meaning. > Is downloadable content available? Check the W3C Process Document, and referring specifications. >> are considered Web standards. >> >> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/> >> <http://www.w3.org/standards/> >> <http://www.w3.org/standards/about.html> >> <http://www.w3.org/standards/faq.html#std> > > <http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/listings/links_international.html> Idiot. The W3C is even an ISOC member. To deny that they are making Web standards is as if you denied that the IESG made the Internet Standard [RFC (3)977] that allows you to post that nonsense in the first place. <http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=1474> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards> >> <http://webstandardsgroup.org/standards/> >> <http://www.opera.com/company/education/curriculum/> >> <http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/> >> <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/grokwebstandards/> >> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/using_web_standards_in_your_web_pages> >> <http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/developing_with_web_standards/> > > So you read blogs and stuff. Good for you. Contrary to others, I know what I am talking about when it comes to organizations like the W3C. > I suppose you mean I should use the results of random Google searches to > educate myself; while I appreciate this insight in your process of > knowledge acquisition, I'd rather stick to consulting relevant > resources. Your "relevant resources" are insufficient to make the proper assessment. PointedEars -- 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(a)news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
From: Garrett Smith on 24 Jan 2010 01:32 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Eric Bednarz wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: >>> Eric Bednarz wrote: [snip] > Contrary to others, I know what I am talking about when it comes to > organizations like the W3C. > A few days ago, you were quite certain that HTML 4 defined clear expectations for nonstandard HTML. In response to what I wrote:- | Code that uses malformed, nonconformant HTML is expecting nonstandard | behavior. - you replied:- | Nonsense. The API Specification does not say how implementations | should behave there. While there is indication that it would be | unwise to rely on implicit type conversion, that is certainly not | based on an expectation of nonstandard behavior. The reason the conversation is at this leg is due to your incorrect argumentation in response to my correct statements. You made several other wrong statements in your message. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Garrett Smith on 24 Jan 2010 01:42 Garrett Smith wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Eric Bednarz wrote: >> >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: >>>> Eric Bednarz wrote: [snip] > | Code that uses malformed, nonconformant HTML is expecting nonstandard > | behavior. > > - you replied:- > > | Nonsense. The API Specification does not say how implementations > | should behave there. While there is indication that it would be > | unwise to rely on implicit type conversion, that is certainly not > | based on an expectation of nonstandard behavior. > Ah, sorry, that was another incorrect argument of yours, posted in that same message you wrote. The pertinent incorrect argument of yours was: | Nonsense. The HTML standard makes recommendations as to how parsers | are supposed to handle invalid markup. But again, it is not wise to | rely on that as those are only recommendations. That statement is a wrong statement and harmful advice to anyone trying to learn html and javascript. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 24 Jan 2010 07:24
Garrett Smith wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Eric Bednarz wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: >>>> Eric Bednarz wrote: > [snip] > >> Contrary to others, I know what I am talking about when it comes to >> organizations like the W3C. > > A few days ago, you were quite certain that HTML 4 defined clear > expectations for nonstandard HTML. First of all, that previous discussion has nothing to do with my statement of fact that the W3C makes Web standards, and with my knowledge about organizations about the W3C contrary to certain others people's. Second, what you describe is _not_ what I said. Instead, I said that HTML 4 made certain recommendations as to what to do with invalid markup, so that (quote Garrett) "Code that uses malformed, nonconformant HTML is expecting nonstandard behavior" is obviously a fallacy; but, since those recommendations are only that (with non-capital `r') it would be unwise to rely on them. Third, the section of my reply that you have quoted now, | Nonsense. The API Specification does not say how implementations | should behave there. While there is indication that it would be | unwise to rely on implicit type conversion, that is certainly not | based on an expectation of nonstandard behavior. has nothing to do with the W3C or HTML 4. Instead, it has to do with the W3C DOM API Specification, and is very far from being wrong in any sense. With a technical specification, only a not fullfilled requirement not to do a certain thing under any circumstances (an explicit or implied MUST NOT) can be considered a violation of that specification, and, if that specification is considered a standard, a non-standard thing. So much for your disdain of straw man arguments. PointedEars -- 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(a)news.demon.co.uk> (2004) |