Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
Anthony wrote: My sentiments exactly. On 27/10/2008, at 3:46 PM, "Breton Slivka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm afraid I will have to throw up my hands and give up on you. You are a lost cause. you cannot be reached. Oh, good. Can we return the list to web standards now? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
My sentiments exactly. Regards, Anthony. Sent from my iPhone! On 27/10/2008, at 3:46 PM, "Breton Slivka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have in fact read your references, not only just now, but again and again I have read the wikipedia articles on the subject many moons ago. Frankly I fail to see how any of it contradicts my position, but they do contradict your position. I'm afraid I will have to throw up my hands and give up on you. You are a lost cause. you cannot be reached. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You seem to have missed my point and many references too. Try reading some of the references and come back with an informed opinion, not just nit-picking at analogies I am providing to attempt to help you understand (as I gather you would not be reading any references I have provided, which conflict with your argument anyway). Thanks, Anthony. Breton Slivka wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so no further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you to two more resources. If you feel that the first ever implementation of object should mandate all others (such as the first insulins), then I welcome you to submit edits to this article. You seem to have missed my point. My point was, if we are to count arbitrary deviations from smalltalk as discounting a language from being oop (such as a lack of classical inheritence), then the only OOP language is smalltalk. This is clearly absurd. Therefore, javascript must be OOP. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
I have in fact read your references, not only just now, but again and again I have read the wikipedia articles on the subject many moons ago. Frankly I fail to see how any of it contradicts my position, but they do contradict your position. I'm afraid I will have to throw up my hands and give up on you. You are a lost cause. you cannot be reached. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You seem to have missed my point and many references too. > > Try reading some of the references and come back with an informed opinion, > not just nit-picking at analogies I am providing to attempt to help you > understand (as I gather you would not be reading any references I have > provided, which conflict with your argument anyway). > > Thanks, > Anthony. > > Breton Slivka wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Anthony Ziebell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so no > further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you to two > more resources. If you feel that the first ever implementation of object > should mandate all others (such as the first insulins), then I welcome you > to submit edits to this article. > > > You seem to have missed my point. My point was, if we are to count > arbitrary deviations from smalltalk as discounting a language from > being oop (such as a lack of classical inheritence), then the only OOP > language is smalltalk. This is clearly absurd. Therefore, javascript > must be OOP. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
You seem to have missed my point and many references too. Try reading some of the references and come back with an informed opinion, not just nit-picking at analogies I am providing to attempt to help you understand (as I gather you would not be reading any references I have provided, which conflict with your argument anyway). Thanks, Anthony. Breton Slivka wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so no further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you to two more resources. If you feel that the first ever implementation of object should mandate all others (such as the first insulins), then I welcome you to submit edits to this article. You seem to have missed my point. My point was, if we are to count arbitrary deviations from smalltalk as discounting a language from being oop (such as a lack of classical inheritence), then the only OOP language is smalltalk. This is clearly absurd. Therefore, _javascript_ must be OOP. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so no > further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you to two > more resources. If you feel that the first ever implementation of object > should mandate all others (such as the first insulins), then I welcome you > to submit edits to this article. You seem to have missed my point. My point was, if we are to count arbitrary deviations from smalltalk as discounting a language from being oop (such as a lack of classical inheritence), then the only OOP language is smalltalk. This is clearly absurd. Therefore, javascript must be OOP. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
Hello, Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so no further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you to two more resources. If you feel that the first ever implementation of object should mandate all others (such as the first insulins), then I welcome you to submit edits to this article. "Prototype-based programming is a style of object-oriented programming in which classes are not present, and behavior reuse (known as inheritance in class-based languages) is performed via a process of cloning existing objects that serve as prototypes. This model can also be known as class-less, prototype-oriented or instance-based programming." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming "The most common criticism made against prototype-based languages is that the community of software developers is not familiar with them, despite the popularity and market permeation of _javascript_. This knowledge level of prototype based systems seems to be changing with the proliferation of _javascript_ frameworks and increases in the complex use of _javascript_ as "Web 2.0" matures." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming#Criticism Thanks, Anthony. Breton Slivka wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Breton, There is a difference between the use of object and object-oriented programming. Yes you say that, but you never go into any detail about it. In what way in particular is the concept and use of "objects" independant from "object orient programming". Did the concept of "objects" *not* come from smalltalk, the original OOP language? Can you cite any occurance of the concept of an "object" in programming that predates smalltalk? Do you then, think it's therefore possible to create a language with Objects that is not in any way inspired by, or derivative of smalltalk? Because honestly, I'm confused about where you think the concept of OOP came from to begin with. Coad / Yourdon suggests object-oriented being classes and objects, inheritance and communication with messages. Does _javascript_ have classes? Can inheritance of _javascript_ occur without prototype? Those are typical elements in OOP languages, yes, and they all existed in the original smalltalk. Are you suggesting that any slight deviation from small talk renders a language completely not OOP? If that were the case, you would pretty much have to rule out any language that was not smalltalk itself. But let's assume you have a less extreme position. What is your methodology to determine how far a language can deviate from smalltalk before it is no longer OOP? You seem fixated on the concept of classical inheritence being essential for a language to be OOP, but this is contradicted by the existance of numerous OOP languages that do not have classes. How do you account for this? _javascript_ in fact, does have classes, but not as a mechanism of inheritence. _javascript_'s inheritence is prototypal. You seem to be suggesting that this makes it not OOP. I would like to suggest that if this makes _javascript_ not OOP, then you would have to say that a dozen other OOP langauges are also not OOP. The choice of class as a defining characteristic of OOP seems arbitrary. If you can suggest that any arbitrary deviation, such as class, from smalltalk makes a language not OOP, then C++ and JAVA are not OOP either, due to their numerous deviations. May I provide the following resource, pointing out second paragraph under 'Adding a Method': http://www.kevlindev.com/tutorials/_javascript_/inheritance/index.htm Object-oriented programming consists of native inheritance. Are you suggesting that a prototypical approach to inheritance one in the same as native inheritance? This is a red herring. With this, you have attempted to change the topic from whether _javascript_ is OOP or not, to whether it has classical inheritence or not. Or, if you have not changed the topic, you appear to be assuming that everyone is in agreement that classes are a required attribute of OOP. This is arbitrary and nonsensical. Thanks, Anthony. Breton Slivka wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Luke, Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question "Is _javascript_ object-orientated?". With that, and in closing, I would like to point out that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if _javascript_ were object-oriented, not if it has objects. Prototype has objects, and it is of my opinion that _javascript_ is more prototype than anything else. Thanks, Anthony. Yes that's fine anthony, but the problem is that statement doesn't actually mean anything. it is logically invalid, and quite nonsensical to say "_javascript_ is not object oriented, it's more prototype based", because the two things are not mutually exclusiv
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Breton, > > There is a difference between the use of object and object-oriented > programming. Yes you say that, but you never go into any detail about it. In what way in particular is the concept and use of "objects" independant from "object orient programming". Did the concept of "objects" *not* come from smalltalk, the original OOP language? Can you cite any occurance of the concept of an "object" in programming that predates smalltalk? Do you then, think it's therefore possible to create a language with Objects that is not in any way inspired by, or derivative of smalltalk? Because honestly, I'm confused about where you think the concept of OOP came from to begin with. > Coad / Yourdon suggests object-oriented being classes and > objects, inheritance and communication with messages. Does JavaScript have > classes? Can inheritance of JavaScript occur without prototype? > Those are typical elements in OOP languages, yes, and they all existed in the original smalltalk. Are you suggesting that any slight deviation from small talk renders a language completely not OOP? If that were the case, you would pretty much have to rule out any language that was not smalltalk itself. But let's assume you have a less extreme position. What is your methodology to determine how far a language can deviate from smalltalk before it is no longer OOP? You seem fixated on the concept of classical inheritence being essential for a language to be OOP, but this is contradicted by the existance of numerous OOP languages that do not have classes. How do you account for this? Javascript in fact, does have classes, but not as a mechanism of inheritence. Javascript's inheritence is prototypal. You seem to be suggesting that this makes it not OOP. I would like to suggest that if this makes Javascript not OOP, then you would have to say that a dozen other OOP langauges are also not OOP. The choice of class as a defining characteristic of OOP seems arbitrary. If you can suggest that any arbitrary deviation, such as class, from smalltalk makes a language not OOP, then C++ and JAVA are not OOP either, due to their numerous deviations. > May I provide the following resource, pointing out second paragraph under > 'Adding a Method': > http://www.kevlindev.com/tutorials/javascript/inheritance/index.htm > > Object-oriented programming consists of native inheritance. Are you > suggesting that a prototypical approach to inheritance one in the same as > native inheritance? > This is a red herring. With this, you have attempted to change the topic from whether javascript is OOP or not, to whether it has classical inheritence or not. Or, if you have not changed the topic, you appear to be assuming that everyone is in agreement that classes are a required attribute of OOP. This is arbitrary and nonsensical. > Thanks, > Anthony. > > Breton Slivka wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Anthony Ziebell > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Luke, > > Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question "Is JavaScript > object-orientated?". With that, and in closing, I would like to point out > that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if JavaScript > were object-oriented, not if it has objects. Prototype has objects, and it > is of my opinion that JavaScript is more prototype than anything else. > > Thanks, > Anthony. > > > Yes that's fine anthony, but the problem is that statement doesn't > actually mean anything. it is logically invalid, and quite nonsensical > to say "javascript is not object oriented, it's more prototype based", > because the two things are not mutually exclusive. Javascript having > prototypical inheritence has absolutely nothing to do with the > question of whether it is object oriented or not. It can be both > object oriented, AND based on prototypal inheritence, and in fact, it > is both. 100%. This is not my opinion. it is a fact. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
Breton, There is a difference between the use of object and object-oriented programming. Coad / Yourdon suggests object-oriented being classes and objects, inheritance and communication with messages. Does _javascript_ have classes? Can inheritance of _javascript_ occur without prototype? May I provide the following resource, pointing out second paragraph under 'Adding a Method': http://www.kevlindev.com/tutorials/_javascript_/inheritance/index.htm Object-oriented programming consists of native inheritance. Are you suggesting that a prototypical approach to inheritance one in the same as native inheritance? Thanks, Anthony. Breton Slivka wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Luke, Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question "Is _javascript_ object-orientated?". With that, and in closing, I would like to point out that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if _javascript_ were object-oriented, not if it has objects. Prototype has objects, and it is of my opinion that _javascript_ is more prototype than anything else. Thanks, Anthony. Yes that's fine anthony, but the problem is that statement doesn't actually mean anything. it is logically invalid, and quite nonsensical to say "_javascript_ is not object oriented, it's more prototype based", because the two things are not mutually exclusive. _javascript_ having prototypical inheritence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether it is object oriented or not. It can be both object oriented, AND based on prototypal inheritence, and in fact, it is both. 100%. This is not my opinion. it is a fact. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luke, > > Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question "Is JavaScript > object-orientated?". With that, and in closing, I would like to point out > that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if JavaScript > were object-oriented, not if it has objects. Prototype has objects, and it > is of my opinion that JavaScript is more prototype than anything else. > > Thanks, > Anthony. Yes that's fine anthony, but the problem is that statement doesn't actually mean anything. it is logically invalid, and quite nonsensical to say "javascript is not object oriented, it's more prototype based", because the two things are not mutually exclusive. Javascript having prototypical inheritence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether it is object oriented or not. It can be both object oriented, AND based on prototypal inheritence, and in fact, it is both. 100%. This is not my opinion. it is a fact. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
Luke, Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question "Is _javascript_ object-orientated?". With that, and in closing, I would like to point out that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if _javascript_ were object-oriented, not if it has objects. Prototype has objects, and it is of my opinion that _javascript_ is more prototype than anything else. Thanks, Anthony. Luke Hoggett wrote: Indeed, as Alan Kay inventor of Smalltalk and OOP said "I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind." cheers L liorean wrote: 2008/10/24 James Jeffery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The language itself is NOT object-orientated, its proto-type based. It can be used in an OOP fashion, but this is not true Object Orientation as it is in languages such as C++. Two serious problems with this statement: First, the prototype system is in fact one of several ways of implementing inheritance in OOP languages. Second, you're assuming C++ is object oriented. It's one of several languages that is known to be OOP by programmers while in actuality it's core is not OOP. Sure, it's possible to use C++ for object oriented programming, but C++ allows doing things that actually break object orientation. You can't do that in more OOP languages, for example _javascript_. C++ and Java are known as object oriented languages, but they are not the ultimate in object orientation. There are plenty of languages that are more object oriented. But they use classical inheritance, and because _javascript_ does not some people have got into their heads that Classical inheritance == OOP which means JavaScritp != OOP. But that's a misconception. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
Indeed, as Alan Kay inventor of Smalltalk and OOP said "I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind." cheers L liorean wrote: 2008/10/24 James Jeffery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The language itself is NOT object-orientated, its proto-type based. It can be used in an OOP fashion, but this is not true Object Orientation as it is in languages such as C++. Two serious problems with this statement: First, the prototype system is in fact one of several ways of implementing inheritance in OOP languages. Second, you're assuming C++ is object oriented. It's one of several languages that is known to be OOP by programmers while in actuality it's core is not OOP. Sure, it's possible to use C++ for object oriented programming, but C++ allows doing things that actually break object orientation. You can't do that in more OOP languages, for example JavaScript. C++ and Java are known as object oriented languages, but they are not the ultimate in object orientation. There are plenty of languages that are more object oriented. But they use classical inheritance, and because JavaScript does not some people have got into their heads that Classical inheritance == OOP which means JavaScritp != OOP. But that's a misconception. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Belinda Garfath/CO/HIC is out of the office. [SEC=No Protective Marking Present]
I will be out of the office starting 27/10/2008 and will not return until 28/10/2008. Keep track of your Medicare Claims History online . Register for Online Services today . NOTICE - This message is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action based upon it. If you received this message in error please notify Medicare Australia immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Medicare Australia. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Searching for standards information
Michael wrote: > > If you were to be prosecuted the court (or more likely > HREOC/Administrative Appeals Tribunal before it got to court) would > consider what measures could be taken without imposing undue hardship > upon the service provider to ensure that equitable access is available > to people regardless of their disability. > A brief addition to this: starting next January, anyone (not just HREOC/AHRC) will have the right to take an action to their state/territory Supreme Court if they feel that they've been discriminated against. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Searching for standards information
Elizabeth, sorry to be a pedant on a Monday morning (erk!) - HREOC is now AHRC - the URL is the same though. Cheers, Andrew On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Elizabeth Spiegel < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ben > > > > In Australia, HREOC is responsible for administering various > anti-discrimination legislation, including the Disability Discrimination > Act. (It comes under the banner of 'equal opportunities' rather than 'human > rights'.) One form of discrimination is offering a service to one group and > refusing to offer it, or offering on less advantageous terms, to another > group. For website designers/builders, this means that if you sell stuff (or > even just offer free information) to the general public and present it in > such a way that people with a disability (e.g. blind people using screen > readers; people with movement disorders that make it difficult/impossible to > use a mouse) can't access it, you are breaking the law. > > > > *Elizabeth Spiegel* > > *Web editing* > > *0409 986 158* > > *GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001* > > *www.spiegelweb.com.au* > > > > > > > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On > Behalf Of *Benedict Wyss > *Sent:* Saturday, 25 October 2008 11:07 PM > *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > *Subject:* Re: [WSG] Re: Searching for standards information > > > > Hi Andrew, > > First off..good reply. > > I like the last paragraph re human rights. Even though I don't need to be > forced to be compliant to standards as I have a conscience but (and excuse > my ignorance) when has being able to access the internet a human right. I > thought it was the domain of things like security, sustenance and protection > from the elements. I am further thinking that in order to obtain justifiable > rights the movement inevitably swings heavily to the right/left in an > attempt to end up in the middle ground. > > I am interested in hearing peoples thoughts on this one. Is it a human > right or...? > > [disclosure: no offense intended] > > Cheers, > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Andrew Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ben, > > AGIMO publishes guidelines that cover some of what you asked for - it is up > to individual organisations as to which guidelines they follow and how far - > it shouldn't be that way but it is. Each organisation that I've worked in > over the last 25 years in Government has had their own writing standards - > and since there has been a web, their own web > content/usability/accessibility standards in one form or another. Most are > compliant in some way or another with WCAG 1.0 - but this is based on > interpretation, and these interpretations vary between organisations. > > Privacy is looked after by the Australian Privacy Commissioner ( > http://www.privacy.gov.au/). > > An study of the Australian Government web standards environment is not > complete without examining the role of the Australian Human Rights > Commission (http://www.hreoc.gov.au). One of the Commissioners, Graeme > Innes, has put the lot of us on notice - he will (to use his words) "name > and shame" organisations that have inaccessible sites. He has started this > already. > > Cheers, Andrew > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Benedict Wyss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > And then the clouds parted... > > http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/ > > If anyone wants to add then please do so but shall consider this closed. > > Cheers, > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Benedict Wyss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am looking for any and all links to comprehensive listings of: > >1. Australian Government Industry Best Practices >2. Australian Government Standards (Privacy, Accessibility and >Usability) > > I have been googling for a while and coming up with bunk. > > All assistance welcomed. > > Thanks, > > Ben > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > > > > -- > --- > Andrew Boyd > http://onblogging.com.au > > > > *** > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup
Replacing a paragraph with JS [was: Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please]
Brett Patterson wrote:
On a different
note, I have a problem with the JavaScript code I am writing.
If you're going to begin a new topic, you should always begin a new
thread to avoid confusing the old thread with irrelevant material and to
attract potential readers who are disinterested in the old thread's topic.
The code is suppose to replace a
paragraph for Microsoft Internet Explorer users, using the replace().
Note that selectively displaying user guidance based on browser
detection is problematic since:
1. Other browsers that you haven't tested might have the same behavior,
especially if they use the same web engine (Trident) as Internet
Explorer, as Maxthon and Avant do.
2. If all other popular browsers have a different behavior, a future
version of Internet Explorer might change to mimic them, or vice versa.
3. Browser detection is not robust, since browsers (either by default or
by users configuration) often "spoof" other browsers in order to
circumvent browser detection (for example, because it is used to track
them, block their access to a site, or provide them with a behaviors
designed for an earlier version of their browser that no longer work).
Where possible, feature detection should be preferred to browser
detection and providing the user with all available guidance should be
preferred to trying to second-guess what guidance is relevant to them.
Given users' natural propensity to click on things, when you have to
explain that you need click on something in order for something to
happen, that is often a sign of an interface that is too hard to use.
Requiring users to differentiate between single-, double-, and
triple-clicking sounds especially difficult, and especially hard to
translate when using alternative input devices - how do you triple-click
using a keyboard, or speech recognition, and a mobile phone touchscreen?
I'm also curious about why Internet Explorer might differ from other
browsers in this case, and why only it only sometimes differs.
Triple-clicking, in low-level Windows terms, appears to be either three
clicks in quick succession or a double click followed by a single click
or a single followed by a double click:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163628.aspx
As
I understand it, there is a maximum of 255 characters in a line, and
here is the line I am using.
Per line of what? Understand from where? There are no line length limits
in HTML or JavaScript as far as I know.
How do I get it to work?
Passing your JavaScript code through JSLint and running it with a
debugger would be a good start, since it has machine-detectable syntax
errors:
http://www.jslint.com/
Debugging with Gecko: http://www.getfirebug.com/
Debugging with Trident:
http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/CompanionJS/HomePage (or IE 8 Beta 2)
Debugging with WebKit: http://webkit.org/blog/197/web-inspector-redesign/
Debugging with Opera:
http://www.opera.com/products/dragonfly/
See also:
http://siliconforks.com/doc/debugging-javascript/
This is the code I am using:
When asking about HTML and JS code, it is best to provide a full HTML
document and a full JS script not a snippet, since how the snippet works
can be drastically changed by HTML and JS elsewhere in the page.
See also this article about test case reduction when reporting bugs from
the WebKit project:
http://webkit.org/quality/reduction.html
Often the very process of test case reduction can reveal where your
problem lies.
Note: If you want to view only a specific
table, you will have to double-click on each drop-down Title, in order
to view individual tables.
Note that the use of markup for presentational purposes ("sup" and "br")
is discouraged in favor of CSS applied to markup used for semantic and
structural purposes. See also:
* Opera Web Standards Curriculum
http://www.opera.com/wsc/
* Shirley E. Kaiser: Semantics, HTML, XHTML, and Structure:
http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles/semantics/structure/
* maxdesign CSS tutorials:
http://css.maxdesign.com.au/