Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Javascript > Online documentation for Geko/Mozilla browsers???

Reply
Thread Tools

Online documentation for Geko/Mozilla browsers???

 
 
Aidan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2004
I rely heavily on MSDN for documentation when it comes to
HTML/DHTML/JavaScript/CSS but as a result I often have problems getting my
stuff to work in Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox. I like the MSDN online
documentation
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...uthor/dhtml/re
ference/objects.asp) because it has complete lists of DHTML objects,
properties, methods, collections and event and for each element you can
easily view all the applicable attributes/propertes, behaviors, collections,
events, filters, methods, objects and styles. And it is a all very well
cross-referenced so for example if you are looking at an event you can see
all the elements that it applies to.

Is there any online equivalent for Mozilla/Geko based browsers?

I have explored the Gecko DOM reference at
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref but frankly this sucks. I cannot find
a complete list of all HTML elements and all attributes/properties, methods,
events, styles etc. I'm thinking there has got to be some decent
documentation like that on MSDN out there., can anybody point me in the
right direction?




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2004
At the time being there are not any, at least nothing staying by quality
level near to MSDN.

The attitude here is:
"IE is all non-standard, so they have to support their own full
documentation. WE are all fully standard, so just read the relevant 3W/ISO
papers. You have a question about our JavaScript? Go read the latest ECMA
specs. CSS - the latest 3W docs. DHTML - the same, etc."

IMHO this is just a primitive laziness and a desire to save money hidden
behind a "Great cause" explanation.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Fred Oz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2004
VK wrote:
> At the time being there are not any, at least nothing staying by quality
> level near to MSDN.


True enough.

> The attitude here is:
> "IE is all non-standard, so they have to support their own full
> documentation. WE are all fully standard, so just read the relevant 3W/ISO
> papers. You have a question about our JavaScript? Go read the latest ECMA
> specs. CSS - the latest 3W docs. DHTML - the same, etc."


Please provide links to where this attitude is supported by any
official sponsor or moderator of this group.

> IMHO this is just a primitive laziness and a desire to save money hidden
> behind a "Great cause" explanation.


And the reason you are watching this group is what - an altruistic
desire to improve the world? Or do you get some great advice and tips
for minimal effort and zero cost?

I suspect that you are partially correct - Mozilla.org does not have
the resouces of Microsoft and therefore can't support a similar level
of on-line documentation. However, I don't think that is a reason for
such abusive language.

If you can't prove your assertion, please apologise to those whose
efforts keep this new group active and informative.

Fred.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Winter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2004
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:45:17 +0100, VK <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> At the time being there are not any, at least nothing staying by quality
> level near to MSDN.


The MSDN Library is a fine reference for writing for IE. However, the
documentation is inaccurate in some places. The biggest problem is that
Microsoft claim that some of the features are defined by the W3C when they
are not. Similarly, they describe some IE-specific behaviour as
conformant, when it is quite the opposite.

If you want accurate references, go to source. They're easy to read. If,
for convenience, you want to use MSDN, just take what it states with a
pinch of salt.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2004
> If you can't prove your assertion, please apologise to those whose
> efforts keep this new group active and informative.


I am begging your pardon? Please point me on any part of my previous message
where I would insult (directly or indirectly) the
news group named *comp.lang.javascript*, also as any other news groups.

The OP's question was NOT about a good JavaScript-related news group. He
asked about an official MSDN's style and level online documentation for
Gesko-browsers. I said that there were not any, and I expressed my personal
opinion ("IMHO") why was that so.

Thus if you are looking for parties possibly insulted by my posting then it
would be (including but not limited by):
Mozilla Foundation (www.mozilla.org)
Netscape Communications as a wholly owned subsidiary of AOL, Inc.
(www.netscape.com)
Opera Software ASA (www.opera.com)

From these three the Mozilla Foundation is the most severely insulted: the
OP said that their documentation "sucks", and I agreed with him and I am
ready to confirm it again.
The only formal pardon I may give is, that at least their docs are
presented. Netscape (upon the closure of DevEdge) and Opera are both simply
sending you to the hell... sorry... to the original 3W/ISO papers, or to 3th
party revelations over "black box" studies.












 
Reply With Quote
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2004
> If you want accurate references, go to source.

Another fancy thing is about referring to ISO: while 3W is a FREE public
source of documentation, ISO is a FEE-BASED source of such. For example, the
latest documentation for ECMAScript cost you 220 Swiss francs (ca. $18 per
download:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueD...CSNUMBER=33835
&ICS1=35&ICS2=60&ICS3=

So giving a free browser and referring to ISO (for script questions, for
example) is similar to provide a free appliance but charge a high fee for
its manual. (Of course nobody pays to ISO, but we are talking from the legal
point of view).

Any browser is a commercial product first, even if it's free (the benefits
are gained in indirect way). And a luck of good service can kill any product
better than any bugs.


Anyone from Mozilla Foundation: make a damn good online interactive
cross-referenced documentation! It's OK if the facts will repeat other
sources: there are still enough of electrons in the universe!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Winter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2004
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:00:18 +0100, VK <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> If you want accurate references, go to source.

>
> Another fancy thing is about referring to ISO:


Where did I, or anyone else, refer to ISO?

> while 3W is a FREE public source of documentation


It's the W3C, by the way.

> ISO is a FEE-BASED source of such.


I know, and their prices are extortionate in my opinion. That's why I've
never had an official copy of the C++ Standard, despite the fact I've
needed to refer to it on many occasions. I've had to make do with compiler
documentation.

> For example, the latest documentation for ECMAScript cost you 220 Swiss
> francs (ca. $18 per download:


If you have any sense at all, you'll get it for free directly from ECMA.
For a start you'll get the third edition, not the second. The link is in
the FAQ.

[link]

By the way, you should wrap long links with <URL:...>:

<URL:http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=33835 &ICS1=35&ICS2=60&ICS3=>

[snip]

> Anyone from Mozilla Foundation: make a damn good online interactive
> cross-referenced documentation!


The documentation is open-source, just like the code base. If you want
them to have documentation that badly, why don't you write something and
submit it?

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Oz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2004
VK wrote:
>> If you can't prove your assertion, please apologise to those whose
>> efforts keep this new group active and informative.

>
>
> I am begging your pardon? Please point me on any part of my previous message
> where I would insult (directly or indirectly) the
> news group named *comp.lang.javascript*, also as any other news groups.
>


It might be the part starting:

"The attitude here is:..."

> The OP's question was NOT about a good JavaScript-related news group. He


Then why did you proceed to pay out on the news group with your claim
to know the "attitude here"?

> From these three the Mozilla Foundation is the most severely insulted: the
> OP said that their documentation "sucks", and I agreed with him and I am
> ready to confirm it again.


Maybe, but that is no reason to pay out on them. They provide a free
browser and free developer support that is far superior to some of
their commercial rivals such as Opera and Netscape. To expect them to
provide a site like Microsoft's is unrealistic.

You may not have intended to insult anyone, Mozilla et al don't need me
to defend them. However I would ask that you adopt a more moderate
tone in replies and don't presume to know "the attitude here".

Fred.
 
Reply With Quote
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-15-2004
OK, we are getting closer to the bug...

The statement "The attitude here is:..." has been used in the context of the
previous constructs stating that there were not any online Gesko docs on the
level of usability of MSDN.
Thus the variable "here" should be casted to "in this situation" or (full
casting) "by the Gesko-based software producers".
Thus the entire statement equals to "The attitude of the Gesko-based
software producers...".

The casting "here" == "comp.lang.javascript" is technically possible, but
has no logic in it: why all from the sky blue would I attack a news group,
never mentioned in the OP's and my reply and irrelevant to the subject?

IMHO (IMHO!) the right casting option (the first from above) should have
higher priority.





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Principles of documentation (was: Python Documentation Blows!) Cameron Laird Python 1 04-03-2004 06:54 PM



Advertisments