Jebus! Get a grip man! > My point exactly, and you have just confirmed that you'll continue pushing > best practices even if that person doesn't want to know that.
the person that doesn't want to know about best practices is an idiot. they're called best practice for a reason. pushing best practice is an admirable quality. the best practice comments on your post weren't 'having a dig' at you, they were more of a FYI, for yourself and for any n00bs that might look at your code and duplicate it. if i were going to have a dig at you, it would probably be along the lines of clogging the newsgroup with questions that are really easy to find the answer to. or knee-jerk reactions to helpful contributions. > on someone because they are stuck with older code to maintain, and that is > the key older code to maintain. i just don't get this. it's javascript - a client-side language, where the browser age is important, not the code. i can understand that if you are coding on a CF3.1 server, you have to code to that server, but if you're coding on a CF5 server with a CF3.1 codebase, you can start using the CF5 tags. You don't have to be all parameterExists() just because it's there in the code; you can get isDefined(), baby. > Get off your high horse about saying that mentioning best practices is good > for all to know, because that can be pointed out in a separate email, not to > the person who is after a solution for their current problem. ...riiight. separate threads for comments. and seperate threads on those comments too, right? and separate threads for... > In my case it is older technology that is tied to a specific platform, I was please describe this platform that requires Document.all. it would want to be some waaay out-of-date intranet with IE4 as SOE. > Steve, take a hint and learn that this is not an ideal world we live in and > don't push something that that person is maybe more than aware off. Unless, Steve, what you're saying is relevant to the general community. If it's drivel like this thread, we could probably do without. > Now I'll spell it out for you and others to read, I am interested in a > solution to a current problem I am not here to be told that I should have > done it this way or its best practice to do it this way, or I need to > upgrade to fix this problem. we helped you with a syntax problem. there was more syntax related information relevant to your post, which you got. maybe your posts should have a 'no additional information, no helpful suggestions' disclaimer on them. Most people don't care or make a fuss about getting an extra 10% for free. > more in line with best practices, but I am only being paid to maintain not > upgrade, to you see my point here now Steve. that doesn't mean you can't modify any document.all you come across, or start using document.getElementById from now on, now does it? But that would be the best practice. At the end of the day Andrew, it's probably not best practice to criticise helpful posts, no matter what your original question or intention was. Sincerely, Grant --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
