Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Mark Harris
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?

Re: [WSG] Re: Searching for standards information

2008-10-27 Thread Andrew Boyd
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Webb, KerryA [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: 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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Brett Patterson
Yes. But, one final question. Was the *first ever* implementation of JavaScript designed to be object-oriented, object-based, or prototype-based? Thank you all. Oh and to David and Christian, in regards to the w3schools, I reread parts of their site, and I understand now what you mean. My

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread liorean
2008/10/27 Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes. But, one final question. Was the first ever implementation of JavaScript designed to be object-oriented, object-based, or prototype-based? Thank you all. The first implementation of JavaScript is still alive in the form of Mozilla

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread liorean
2008/10/27 liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The first implementation of JavaScript is still alive in the form of Mozilla SpiredMonkey Or SpiderMonkey, as it is properly called :) -- David liorean Andersson *** List Guidelines:

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread James Jeffery
My statement was not worded correctly. I use Java, C++, PHP and Javascript and I can tell you that out of the lot of them, Javascript is the most difficult to incorperate conventional Object Orientated design. For example you cannot simply define classes, or use visability keywords (you can do

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Anthony
Not exactly. My arguement was that while javascript has objects, it is indeed prototype-based It is only through arguement did any mention of javascripts inheritence get a mention, which is also still true. This was not the underlying factor, but something somone brought up. I'm not

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread liorean
2008/10/27 Anthony [EMAIL PROTECTED]: My arguement was that while javascript has objects, it is indeed prototype-based Oh, we're not disputing that. But look at some of your earlier comments. This for instance: 2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sure, that's what an object is.

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Anthony
Not once did I hear someone say it was prototype-based. Intact others have flat out denied it. The question was is it either object or prototype. I merely stated if anything it should be seen as prototype, but it does have objects. Then, it followed with all sorts of garbage from those

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Breton Slivka
It is my understanding that the bulk of those OOP design patterns are useful to get around the limitations of static languages like C++ and Java, that don't allow you to arbitrarily add/remove properties from instances, change the type of a value, or allow higher order functions (functions that

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Keryx Web
Brett Patterson skrev: I am in the middle of a conversation with this guy who says that JavaScript is an object-oriented language. Is he correct? Could you please site some references? I have read the whole thread up until now, but will answer your starting message, since I am not

[WSG] how come

2008-10-27 Thread kevin mcmonagle
hi, How come you cant change the list-type from none to circle(or anything else) on li a:hover? -kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Breton Slivka
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. But, one final question. Was the first ever implementation of JavaScript designed to be object-oriented, object-based, or prototype-based? Thank you all. Here is Brenden Eich, Javascript's creator, pontificating

Re: [WSG] how come

2008-10-27 Thread Anthony Ziebell
Hi Kevin, The list-style-type (I assume that's what you meant) sets the list-item marker. So giving the anchor a list-style-type wouldn't effect the list-item. Cheers, Anthony. kevin mcmonagle wrote: hi, How come you cant change the list-type from none to circle(or anything else) on li

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Anthony Ziebell
Hey Breton, I think the examples you gave are implemented in the PHP object and are relatively simple to implement. Cheers, Anthony. Breton Slivka wrote: It is my understanding that the bulk of those OOP design patterns are useful to get around the limitations of static languages like

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Anthony Ziebell
Thanks Keryx, Some interesting information. Nice point on the arrays actually being objects. At one point you did mention _javascript_ is object-based, then in another, prototype-based. So that confuses me a little. If your point is that it is object-based and uses prototype to inherit

Re: [WSG] how come

2008-10-27 Thread David Dorward
When you hit the reply button, your email client indicates what email the reply is to. Many people have their email clients configured to display that relationship, so your message is marked as being a continuation of a discussion about Writing authoritative content. Please don't hijack threads -

Re: [WSG] how come

2008-10-27 Thread kevin mcmonagle
The list-style appears on the li element. The selector li a:hover matches the a element, which isn't display: list-item and so can't have a list marker. Additionally, CSS provides no way to select an element based on its children, so you can't match the list item based on the hover state of a

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread liorean
2008/10/27 Anthony [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Not once did I hear someone say it was prototype-based. Intact others have flat out denied it. The question was is it either object or prototype. I merely stated if anything it should be seen as prototype, but it does have objects. Now you're doing that

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Keryx Web
Anthony Ziebell skrev: Still confuses me though - if someone is object-orientated but is in essence prototype-based (with regards to object, inheritance, etc), why is it incorrect to say JavaScript is prototype-based? Your confusion comes from comparing apples to steam trains. Prototypes

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Anthony Ziebell
Ok, great. It was my intent to acknowledge some standards / submissions for OO which inferred classes / native inheritance were needed. Thanks for your help :) Cheers, Anthony. Keryx Web wrote: Anthony Ziebell skrev: Still confuses me though - if someone is object-orientated but is in

[WSG] Javascript classical inheritence [was: JavaScript clarification please]

2008-10-27 Thread Mathew Robertson
All this talk over JavaScript not supporting classes, is incorrect. I put together a little demo of classical class-based inheritence. The only real limitation is that you can't do protected members and friends and the syntax might be considered to be a little clunky.

Re: [WSG] Javascript classical inheritence [was: JavaScript clarification please]

2008-10-27 Thread liorean
2008/10/28 Mathew Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: All this talk over JavaScript not supporting classes, is incorrect. I put together a little demo of classical class-based inheritence. The only real limitation is that you can't do protected members and friends and the syntax might be

Re: [WSG] Javascript classical inheritence

2008-10-27 Thread Mathew Robertson
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mathew/js/ I hope this helps clear things up a bit. That's support for classes in the same way C has support for classes though - you can design them on top of the language, but you don't get support for it for ordinary language elements or for built in

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Brett Patterson
I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is owned by Sun? Or just the Java part? And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in Internet Explorer. On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, great. It was my intent to acknowledge some

Re: [WSG] how come

2008-10-27 Thread Brett Patterson
Have you tried: ul li:hover { list-style-type: circle; } On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:04 PM, kevin mcmonagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The list-style appears on the li element. The selector li a:hover matches the a element, which isn't display: list-item and so can't have a list marker.

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread liorean
2008/10/28 Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is owned by Sun? Or just the Java part? And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in Internet Explorer. Yes, it's a registred trademark of Sun, licenced to Netscape once upon a time as

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Breton Slivka
The term Javascript is indeed owned by Sun. The implementation of Ecmascript in IE is called JScript, not Javascript, so it doesn't infringe the trademark (technically, but it's similar enough that people can still easily think that IE calls it Javascript) On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Brett

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Hassan Schroeder
Brett Patterson wrote: I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is owned by Sun? Yes, and googling javascript trademark gives a first hit of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in Internet Explorer. And, no, the same

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread liorean
2008/10/28 liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, it's a registred trademark of Sun, Actually a Trademark, not a Registred Trademark, apparently. -- David liorean Andersson *** List Guidelines:

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-27 Thread Hassan Schroeder
liorean wrote: (Netscape had originally intended to use the name LiveScript.) Actually, it was initially released as LiveScript and renamed later. So much backstory on that, but at this point I have no idea what's covered by my then employment contract. Regardless, good times. :-) -- Hassan

[WSG] CSS and printing absolute units

2008-10-27 Thread nedlud
I need to write a print style sheet and have a particular element on the page print at a specific absolute size (85mm by 35mm). I've set the size using the mm units in the style sheet, but the element is printing at 65mm wide. From what I can see, mm (and cm) are well supported measurements in

[WSG] Proposed National Policy on Online Accessibility for India

2008-10-27 Thread Rahul Gonsalves
Hello! As an independent accessibility consultant, I was heartened by India's ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and especially with Articles 9 and 21 (mandating online accessibility). However, over the last two years, little or no work has been