«

On Jun 3, 3:39*am, Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 9:00*am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (...)
> > Yes, and LOL funny.
> > (...)
>
> LOL and funny ? That wasn't supposed to be funny, or did you see any
> smiley ? That's pathetic and pitiful for a *JAVASCRIPT* FAQ...

No, it is pathetic and pitiful that you can't use Google.

In article
<60fcefc4-a1c8-4699-ae67->,
David Mark <> wrote:

> On Jun 3, 3:39*am, Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 9:00*am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > LOL and funny ? That wasn't supposed to be funny, or did you see any
> > smiley ? That's pathetic and pitiful for a *JAVASCRIPT* FAQ...
>
> No, it is pathetic and pitiful that you can't use Google.

Snip, snip, snip, snip, snip, ...

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On Jun 3, 4:55*pm, Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 3:00*am, RobG <robg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (...)
> > In any case, if you think an item on JSON is required, write one and
> > post it here for review and possible inclusion in the FAQ.
>
> Again ? Ok, here it goes:
>
> On Jun 1, 12:01 pm, Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *FAQ Topic - What online resources are available?
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >http://crockford.com/javascript/
>
> > JSON:http://www.JSON.org/

That is not a suitable FAQ entry. Would you be happy if the entire FAQ
was reduced to links to ECMA-262 and the W3C DOM pages?


> > JSLINT:http://www.JSLint.com/
> > JSMIN:http://javascript.crockford.com/jsmin.html
> > JSMIN:http://fmarcia.info/jsmin/test.html
> > (...)

Perhaps you would. The above links have nothing to do with JSON, why
would that be part of a JSON FAQ entry?

Firstly you have to work out what the question is - since there aren't
any asked here specifically about JSON, you'll have to make one up.
The answer should briefly explain what JSON is and how to use it.
Lastly, include a link to json.org. Perhaps you could also write a
longer article that could be linked to the notes pages and shows how
to use JSON in an XMLHttpRequest response.

If you aren't prepared to do that, there likely won't be a JSON entry
as there seems to be little enthusiasm to answer a question that no
one has asked.


--
Rob

On Jun 3, 2:25*pm, RobG <robg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 12:01 pm, Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
>
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *FAQ Topic - What online resources are available?
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > JSON:http://www.JSON.org/
>
> That is not a suitable FAQ entry. Would you be happy if the entire FAQ
> was reduced to links to ECMA-262 and the W3C DOM pages?
>
> (...)

Mr. G.,

There's an "online resources" section in the FAQ... and a link to
json.org fits there perfectly. It ought to be there already:

http://jibbering.com/faq/#onlineResources

but it isn't.

--
Jorge.

Jorge schrieb:

> There's an "online resources" section in the FAQ... and a link to
> json.org fits there perfectly. It ought to be there already:
>
> http://jibbering.com/faq/#onlineResources
>
> but it isn't.

The FAQ for comp.lang.javascript is not a suitable discussion topic for
comp.text.xml. So please discuss this on comp.lang.javascript only.

--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

Garrett Smith wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>> Jorge wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 10:11 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> "Your search - site:jibbering.com/faq/ json - did not match any
>>> documents."
>>>
>>> Pathetic, pitiful...
>>>
>> Yes, and LOL funny.
>>
>> Make sure that you type the search term criteria first, before the site
>> filter.
>>
>> Like this:-
>> json site:jibbering.com/
>>
>
> It does seem to work the other way, too. Guess it isn't funny after all.
> Just annoying.

Since when do URI( references)s work with Google's `site:' parameter in the
first place?


PointedEars