Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Javascript > <FAQENTRY> 3.2 update needed

Reply
Thread Tools

<FAQENTRY> 3.2 update needed

 
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ3_2>

The parts where update, replacement
or add-on is needed are in <update> tag.


3.2 What online resources are available?

Javascript FAQ sites, please check these first:-
<http://developer.irt.org/script/script.htm>
<update>
irt.org server seems dead (tracert and ping fail on it)
As the first suggested link must be fixed ASAP
</update>

<http://javascript.faqts.com/> - OK

Index of Netscape 4 JavaScript docs online and for download:-
<http://devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/>
<update>
Hello there! DevEdge is gone *several years ago*.
Online documentation can be found at:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20040827051054/devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/>

Zipped download package is not available. I'm ready to volunteer to
provide a copy of this package to the FAQ administrator or have it
uploaded to <http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/>
</update>

Online Gecko DOM Reference:-
<http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref>
<update>
<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Gecko_DOM_Reference>
(autoforward still works but for how long?)
<update>
Download:-
<http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref.zip> - OK

Microsoft (D)HTML reference:-
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/dhtml_reference_entry.asp>

<update>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/dhtml_reference_entry.asp>
</update>

JScript reference and main Microsoft script site:-
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsoriJScript.asp>

<http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting/>
<update>
Microsoft JScript main site:-
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsoriJScript.asp>
Microsoft JScript Language Reference:-
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jslrfjscriptlanguagereference.asp>
</update>

Opera Documentation:-
<http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/#ecmascript>
<update>
<http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/js/>
<http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/js/ecma/>
</update>

<update>
(Suggested add-on)
Safari DOM Documentation:-
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/WebKit_DOM/index.html>
Safari JavaScript Reference:-
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariJSRef/index.html>
</update>

<snip>

DHTML source code and tutorials:-
<http://www.dansteinman.com/dynduo/>
<update>
dansteinman.com server gives 403 - Access Forbidden error
</update>

<http://www.w3schools.com/>
<update>
<http://www.w3schools.com/dhtml/default.asp>
</update>

Sites focused on using Scripting to automate Windows:-
<http://www.windows-script.com/>
<update>
<http://groups.msn.com/windowsscript>
(autoforwarding is *very* slow and it works to the end of this year
only)
</update>
<http://cwashington.netreach.net/> - OK

<snip>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matt Kruse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
VK wrote:
> <snip>


Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?

--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Matt Kruse wrote:
> Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?


Do not like "wiki" term too much but yes that would be great. It all
depends on jibbering.com server resource donation. I'm ready to
volunteer upon need and possibility in server-side / client-side
programming (no content edit - it's totally reserved to the FAQ admin


I see all FAQ's having faq id number instead of section numbers (like
Microsoft Knowledge Base) with auto-ranking system based on how often
particular faq has been viewed.

Also it would be great to have Limbo FAQ Section. So new FAQ's could
be added to this "purgatory" and voted by visitors in say one month. If
it gets enough votes (IP-limited) it goes to the main section,
otherwise it desappears.

Each FAQ should have runtime edit/comment tool.

The FAQ page itself should be both a sample of the possibilities of
modern scripting (AJAX loading/submission comes first in my mind) and a
sample of proper roll-back / script disabled technique.

IMHO

 
Reply With Quote
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Matt Kruse wrote:
> Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?


Also it would be great to have options:
"Submit this FAQ translated to ..." so one could volunteer in
translation on her mother tongue
and
"This FAQ also available on..." for existing translations.

All together may get to buzy to the FAQ admin though...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
VK wrote:

> Matt Kruse wrote:
>> Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?

>
> Also it would be great to have options:
> "Submit this FAQ translated to ..." so one could volunteer in
> translation on her mother tongue
> and
> "This FAQ also available on..." for existing translations.


I like both suggestions. Note that e.g. de.comp.lang.javascript also has a
FAQ, so if one would desire a specific FAQ translated to German, it would
be possible to additionally link to it and vice-versa.


PointedEars
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Kruse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> I like both suggestions. Note that e.g. de.comp.lang.javascript also
> has a FAQ, so if one would desire a specific FAQ translated to
> German, it would be possible to additionally link to it and
> vice-versa.


Furthermore, I think the FAQ should be separated into a
"comp.lang.javascript" FAQ and a general "Javascript FAQ". Separate the
newsgroup ettiquete stuff from the general JS stuff.

All this is probably too much for one person, so making it a wiki seems to
be the only way to really manage it, imo.

--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005

Matt Kruse wrote:
> Furthermore, I think the FAQ should be separated into a
> "comp.lang.javascript" FAQ and a general "Javascript FAQ". Separate the
> newsgroup ettiquete stuff from the general JS stuff.
>
> All this is probably too much for one person, so making it a wiki seems to
> be the only way to really manage it, imo.


So far the FAQ section contains 61 topic. We can say that the data
handling aspect is currently negligeable. And it should stay within
some reasonnable limit (100-200 topics ?) otherwise it will be a
toolbox reference and not a FAQ.

It is more important to make the system in such way that it would be:
1) community updatable
2) anti-community protected (so it would not tranform into a source of
virus and porno links)
3) would not be a new full time job for the current FAQ admin

Reading FAQ's lead to two possible outcome: you either get your
question answered or you post your question to comp.lang.javascript
Taking that, the "What should I consider before posting my question?"
link should be provided on the FAQ page, while newsgroup ettiquete
(pointed by this link) could be on a separate page.

Shared project ("wiki") could be the key. All depends on what server
resources (if any) can be provided.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Cornford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> VK wrote:
>> Matt Kruse wrote:
>>> Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?

>>
>> Also it would be great to have options:
>> "Submit this FAQ translated to ..." so one could volunteer in
>> translation on her mother tongue
>> and
>> "This FAQ also available on..." for existing translations.

>
> I like both suggestions. Note that e.g. de.comp.lang.javascript
> also has a FAQ, so if one would desire a specific FAQ translated
> to German, it would be possible to additionally link to it and
> vice-versa.


Translating the various articles associated with the FAQ into other
languages is a concept that I am completely happy with (at least as far
as the articles that I was responsible for writing are concerned). At
least within certain restrictions. Indeed a couple of months ago I
agreed to a French translation of:-

<URL: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html >

On the condition that the result be publicly available (so we could link
to it from the original), preserve all of the original credits and that
I could verify the accuracy of the translation (I was going to ask one
of my French colleagues to check the translation). As the result is at:-

<URL:
http://developer.mozilla.org/fr/docs...meture%22_en_J
avaScript >

- you would imagine that satisfying those criteria would not be a
problem. But the translator decided, for some unknown reason, to split
the article up across numerous pages (which is not the way in which I
designed it to be read) and every time I visit that page half the links
into the sections of the article don't work, so half the article is
inaccessible. I cannot ask any of my colleagues to verify the
translation, because they cannot get at all of it, and I cannot justify
linking to it as it is pretty useless in its fractional state.

The ease with which someone can take something an intrinsically reliable
as an article marked up in HTML and render it broken is sometimes
astounding. That it should be contributors to develope.mozilla.org who
are achieving this is particularly disappointing.

As to the FAQ being a wiki; I have said from the outset, and it is
stated in the notes, that anyone wishing to contribute an article to the
FAQ notes is free to do so, so long as they accept that the article be
subject to public technical scrutiny on the group (and accepted as
accurate/useful) and may be subject to unrestricted future editing (in
the event that it becomes inaccurate at some future point).

The total number of articles proposed for inclusion in the FAQ notes in
the last two years is one. And that written by VK; factually incorrect,
confused and misleading, and so not included because it did not (and
could not) pass the scrutiny of the group.

And we are not even restricted to whole articles, there is the
miscellaneous tips and tricks page, where any well explained specific
technique might be presented, but no contributions there either.

So given that nobody seems willing or able to contribute anything
substantial to the FAQ what would you expect to appear in such a wiki?
Fragmentary arguments? We can get plenty of those from the group
archives. And to retain the usefulness of the FAQ it would be necessary
to weed out the wrong, inaccurate and superficial. If asking for
contributions yields nothing then allowing contributions and then
weeding out the worthless is also likely to yield nothing, only in the
latter case it requires a constant effort to achieve that.

Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Richard Cornford wrote:

> As to the FAQ being a wiki; I have said from the outset, and it is
> stated in the notes, that anyone wishing to contribute an article to the
> FAQ notes is free to do so, so long as they accept that the article be
> subject to public technical scrutiny on the group (and accepted as
> accurate/useful) and may be subject to unrestricted future editing (in
> the event that it becomes inaccurate at some future point).
>
> The total number of articles proposed for inclusion in the FAQ notes in
> the last two years is one. And that written by VK; factually incorrect,
> confused and misleading, and so not included because it did not (and
> could not) pass the scrutiny of the group.


The problem is that complete elaborate, technically perfect articles are
expected from one contributor. Who will take the time for that? I'd
rather think of a FAQ as a collection of solutions to known problems a
majority of active posters can agree to, mainly short, if possible.

A FAQ (list) should precise, but not too long and too detailed in itself.
Links to detailed explanations are OK. But what would you think if it
takes less time posting a FAQ to the newsgroup and probably get it
answered than reading the FAQ list and finding the answer there? Would
you not rather post the FAQ?

> And we are not even restricted to whole articles, there is the
> miscellaneous tips and tricks page, where any well explained specific
> technique might be presented, but no contributions there either.


What about postings like <(E-Mail Removed)>?
Are they not worthy to be considered or what is the matter?

> So given that nobody seems willing or able to contribute anything
> substantial to the FAQ what would you expect to appear in such a wiki?
> Fragmentary arguments? We can get plenty of those from the group
> archives. And to retain the usefulness of the FAQ it would be necessary
> to weed out the wrong, inaccurate and superficial. If asking for
> contributions yields nothing then allowing contributions and then
> weeding out the worthless is also likely to yield nothing, only in the
> latter case it requires a constant effort to achieve that.


True, because the initial condition is wrong


PointedEars
 
Reply With Quote
 
VK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Richard Cornford wrote:
> And to retain the usefulness of the FAQ it would be necessary
> to weed out the wrong, inaccurate and superficial.


First thing first: FAQ 3.2 has to be updated at least to the level of
right working links. If you have any experience in the web development
you have to know that nothing decreases more a web source worthiness
than broken or misleading links. Forget suggested Safari sources
add-on, but at least *existing links have to be either working or
removed*. Period.
Besides the restored "usefulness of the FAQ" it will show that there is
some administration behind the scene. Right now FAQ Poster seems to be
some autonome machine from hell somebody launched at least 4 years ago
(based on some expired links) and never came back since then.

> Indeed a couple of months ago I
> agreed to a French translation of:-


Sad story but you need be carefull in making publishing agreement. Next
time call you lawyer before say "Yes"


> As to the FAQ being a wiki; I have said from the outset, and it is
> stated in the notes, that anyone wishing to contribute an article to the
> FAQ notes is free to do so, so long as they accept that the article be
> subject to public technical scrutiny


and your final denial. For your information my ArrayAndHash article got
so far 285 visitors where 270 came from Google using keywords:
"javascript invalid array length"
"javascript wrong array length"
"javascript array length value"

I guess these 270 requests would be posted in this group otherwise.


> The total number of articles proposed for inclusion in the FAQ notes in
> the last two years is one. And that written by VK; factually incorrect,
> confused and misleading, and so not included because it did not (and
> could not) pass the scrutiny of the group.


See the above and gave your own text to the FAQ ("Array length
property, children, is not really length and actually there is no array
as such and...")

> So given that nobody seems willing or able to contribute anything
> substantial to the FAQ what would you expect to appear in such a wiki?
> Fragmentary arguments? We can get plenty of those from the group
> archives. And to retain the usefulness of the FAQ it would be necessary
> to weed out the wrong, inaccurate and superficial. If asking for
> contributions yields nothing then allowing contributions and then
> weeding out the worthless is also likely to yield nothing, only in the
> latter case it requires a constant effort to achieve that.


Please, just correct the broken link in the topic 3.2 - it really
sucks. The rest is a hopeless case.

 
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
Update On The Windows Phone 7 Update Update Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 2 02-25-2011 08:03 AM
Help needed on this 857W config. Repost to be clearer what the problemsare and the help needed sparticle Cisco 3 08-30-2007 07:47 PM
Needed Instructor's Manual for Data Structures and Algorithms in C++ needed!!! Thomas Nick C++ 0 06-13-2005 01:58 AM
Advise needed re Olympus Camedia C-3030 Zoom Camera (driver needed) Arawak Computer Support 2 11-18-2004 03:03 PM
Microsoft small business server 2003 - help needed to understand what is needed to use it Dima Computer Support 5 10-20-2004 08:27 PM



Advertisments