from:"Anthony"





Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute?

Rimantas Liubertas wrote:

  
Without using alerts, you could add the warning into the actual
document. But how does a screen reader know the document has changed?

  
  
For starters: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/introduction-to-wai-aria/

Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


  




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***

[WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility





Hey group,

Does anyone have any ideas on standards based form validation, which is
non-obtrusive, however remains accessible?

Reason I ask, is that some form validations inject an element say under
a form input, explaining the error. Now, without any alerts, how would
a blind person / screen reader pick up the fact that the element is now
there and read out this error?

Has anyone been able to cater for this requirement?

Thanks,
Anthony.




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***

Re: [WSG] Microformats & Accessibility





Yes, well thankfully there is a workaround. The ABBR
element and title with machine code is a serious problem so far as
accessibility is concerned.

Regards,
Anthony.

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Anthony
Ziebell wrote:
  
  Yes, until the brainstorm is approved and
made standard. Hopefully soon, 
  
As the lord of microformats Tantek seems so vehemently opposed  to it,
I sincerely doubt it will happen any time soon. It's now been roughly
three years since the debate around ABBR issues first started, and
little visible progress seems to have been made. Who knows, maybe the
cynic in me will be pleasantly surprised, but I won't hold my breath...
  
  
P
  




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***

Re: [WSG] Microformats & Accessibility





Yes, until the brainstorm is approved and made
standard. Hopefully soon, to remove the requirement of extra CSS. You
could apply a span.value style, or alternatively add 'hidden' as an
extra class style and apply it to that.

span.value style would probably be sufficient.

Regards,
Anthony.

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Anthony
Ziebell wrote:
  
  
  Just a note... for now the following should
be used instead:


/human valuemachine
value/

  
  
And rely on CSS to display:none that nested span?
  
  




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***

Re: [WSG] Microformats & Accessibility





Hey Ben,

Just a note... for now the following should be used instead:

human valuemachine value

The  is
still in brainstorming so should not be used yet.

Reference:
http://microformats.org/wiki/value-excerption-pattern-brainstorming#parsing_title_from_empty_value_elements

Cheers,
Anthony.


Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Ben
Rowe wrote:
  
  
  Obviously it is a clash of HTML standards VS
accessibility.

  
  
Actually, it's a clash of microformats' misappropriation of HTML
standards VS accessibility...
  
  
An empty span won't kill anybody though. What you lose in code purity
you gain in a slightly more accessible solution (as long as tools that
consume those microformats actually recognise the span solution...been
a while since I checked if that's the case - otherwise, it's purely
academic).
  
  
P
  




***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***

Re: [WSG] Title attribute

2009-01-13 Thread Anthony Ziebell

Hello,

The title attribute is especially useful if you need to explain the
content of a page to your visitor and your link text is not so
meaningful. I would advise that you attempt to use meaningful text in
your links. It might be a good idea to change the structure of your
sentence so that meaningful text can be used for linking.

You can read up on good link architecture here:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/importance-of-link-architecture.html

Regards,
Anthony.

Chris Dimmock wrote:

Hi Jens

Actually, using the 'title' attribute in a link does NOT add a little
bit of SEO. Title element ('Page Title') - yes for SEO - but title
attribute - no.

Try it yourself. Put a few words in a title attribute - words which
don't otherwise appear on your page. The once Google has re-indexed
the page, (look at the date in the Google cache); then search your
sitein Google for the words you included in the title attribute.

Here's an example. The words "Australian DDA" appear in a title
element of a link on http://www.cogentis.com.au/ but no where else on
that page, i.e. only here:

Web accessibility
issues

But a search in Google will not return this page.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=site%3Acogentis.com.au+Australian+DDA&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU

It only returns another page on the site which does have those words
on the page.

Google won't find them, because it doesn't index them; just like
Google doesn't index the content of e.g. meta name ="keywords" field.

Chris

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Jens-Uwe Korff
wrote:

I was wondering how valuable the Title attribute is

Use the 'title' attribute when the link text needs to be short and
doesn't convey all a user needs to know, eg. Local news. In this case you also add a bit
of SEO.

I found that, contrary to what I believed previously, this is not
required for assistive technologies, ie. screenreaders. They usually
pick up the anchor text well.

Cheers,

Jens

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***

[WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict

2008-12-15 Thread Anthony Milner

Glad to report that I've found a .NET site that validates XHTML 1.0 strict
(hat tip to Craig Bailey
http://www.craigbailey.net/live/post/2008/12/14/Microsoft-Oxite-coverage.aspx
for
leading me to it.)

It's the Mix Online site which is built on a Microsoft Open Source CMS
platform (yes you read that right Microsoft and open source in the same
sentence, I was also surprised) called Oxite. http://visitmix.com/

Oxite is still in beta and is built on the MVC platform which appears to be
a good news story for building .NET web standards compliant websites.

Anthony

> -Original Message-
> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
> On Behalf Of Anthony Milner
> Sent: 08 October 2008 03:23
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict
>
> Hi,
>
> I was having a *chat* with some .NET developer colleagues and they
> challenged me to find a .NET site that achieves XHTML 1.0 strict
> compliance. Hoping to prove to them that it can be done.
>
> Does anybody know of some .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict (or even
> transitional)?
>
> Thanks,
> Anthony


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [OT] Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

2008-12-03 Thread Anthony


See you there. Bring your friends

Regards,
Anthony.

Sent from my iPhone!

On 03/12/2008, at 6:19 PM, "Michael MD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



This just arrived in my email:

Event: Sydney Townhall Protest to Stop Internet censorship & filtering
What: Protest
Host: http://nocensorship.info ; http://wiki.efp.org.au/
Start Time: Saturday, December 13 at 11:00am
End Time: Saturday, December 13 at 4:00pm
Where: Sydney Town Hall Square



list of protests in other cities from http://nocensorship.info


Brisbane:
13th of December
11am - 3pm
Brisbane Square


Melbourne:
13th of December
12pm-5pm
State Library


Adelaide:
13th of December
12pm - 4pm
Parliament


Hobart:
13th of December
11am-1:30pm
Parliament Lawns


Perth:
13th of December
12pm-3:00pm
Stirling Gardens



***
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] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

2008-11-26 Thread Anthony Ziebell





As I understand it, tests have already been
completed in TAS? I'm not sure how accurate this is, though... as I
have not seen any results.

Andrew Barnett wrote:

  This is currently at the stage of the government looking for
expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial.

I only hope that this trial shows that this proposal is the crock of
sh*t that everyone says it is.

The previous Liberal government's proposal is a much more viable, and
better suited proposal. They were providing web monitoring software to
be run on each PC (at the request of the owner) rather than scanning
the incoming data in real-time.


Andrew



2008/11/27 Hassan Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
  
  
Brett Patterson wrote:


  1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!

--and--

3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I
can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.
  

Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-)

And you might want to google, say, "Australia firewall censorship"...

FWIW,
--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

 dream.  code.


***
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.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia

2008-11-26 Thread Anthony Ziebell





Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over
news, whirlpool, everywhere.

Brett Patterson wrote:
1)
That, I do believe is a crock of shit!
  2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!!
  
  
  --and--
  
  
  3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and
this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive!
  4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam.
  
  On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
  Hi,

Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up
is legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know
about this.

IceKat.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Thought you might be interested
 
Love Mum
 
 
-
Original Message -
From:
GetUp 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM
Subject: The Great Firewall of Australia



 
Dear Helen,

Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went
further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87%
slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate
sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content.

This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator
Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun.
The community must now move to stop this plan. Click here to
save the net:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of
all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to
add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has
begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia
and gambling. It isn't difficult to see the scheme is open to
abuse. 

Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not
prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The
protection of our children is vitally important - that's why
we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should
be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't
undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms.

This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd
Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell
big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the
principles of a modern democracy and modern economy:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into
the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This
proposed internet censorship does neither. Take action to save
the net today.

Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The GetUp team 

PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a
government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every
letter sent in Australia. Click here to save the net. 

__

GetUp
is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use
new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important
national issues. We receive no political party or government funding,
and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations.
If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate
now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please
go directly to www.getup.org.au.
To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.


Authorised
by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date:
11/25/2008 7:53 PM


  
  
  
  
  
-- 
Brett P.
  
  
***
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] XHTML Standard question

2008-11-19 Thread Anthony Ziebell





Remember to use server side validation and you don't
need to worry about rewriting standards :)

Brett Patterson wrote:
I
know that most, if not possible to say all, Web page designers use
_javascript_ for form validation. During a recent poll done by a few
local colleges, 41.2% of the people who responded stated that they
would rather not have to enable _javascript_, but on rare occasion they
do for certain sites that require JS for use of their forms to buy or
sign up for something. After reading this, I did some research, and
could not find any tag attributes for form elements that would not
require the use JS for form validation.
  
Therefore, I was wondering if it would be feasible to include a
standard that would use a syntax similar (does not actually have
to be this way) to selected="selected"? In which case, the syntax would
be required="required". Or, if it is an email input (i.e. Your e-mail
address:).
  
-- 
Brett P.
  
***
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] Question on servers and Email campaign

2008-11-11 Thread Anthony Ziebell





Sounds like a death-trap.

Graphics & Web Designing, LLC wrote:

  I am sorry to ask this question but I am very curious as to how others feel about this.

I have a client that is purchasing E-mail listings from a company called expedia mail and I
Was called and asked for my server's root access information so that they can download their
Software onto my server for my clients email campaign.

I refuse to give anyone access to MY server let alone my root access.

Am I being rude and uncooperative on this or am I right?

According to the lady I spoke with she claims that I am uncooperative and that they have many
Companies give out there root access information to their servers.

I just can NOT put my other clients at risk and give some other company access to my server 
Where they have full access to my server and all of my clients and my servers information and in 
Addition they can do as they please once I give them my root access information.

Again, I would like to thank all for reading this post and I do hope this is not against WSG standards. 
But I am really needing confirmation that I am not losing it and that I was right in protecting
My clients as well as my server.




Sherri 
Graphic’s & Web Designing, LLC
(941)876-4609  (941)889-8336 Cell
 

Have a great day.

http://www.webgraphicdesigning.com




  


***
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.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please





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 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 are an inheritance mechanism for objects.
  
  
Classes are another inheritance mechanism.
  
  
A language may implement either one or both (very rare).
  
  
It does not matter which inheritance mechanism that is used. It is
still an OO language.
  
  
It is *not* incorrect to say _javascript_ is prototype based. It is. No
one is denying it.
  
  
It is *not* incorrect to say _javascript_ is OO. It is, since OO is a
paradigm for programming which JS fits very neatly in. It is de facto
called OO in the ECMAScript spec.
  
  
It is *not* incorrect to say _javascript_ is object based. It is - since
it has object wrappers for all primitive values.
  
  
You really did seem to say that classes are needed for a language to be
called OO. Now you have stated that you did not intend to say that.
Case closed.
  
  
  
Lars Gunther
  
  
  
***
  
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

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 objects,
I think I understand your point.

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?

Cheers,
Anthony.

Keryx Web wrote:
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 addressing a single specific
respondent.

I am in charge of developing DOM Scripting courses for the Curriculum
Framework of the WaSP Education Task Force[1]

I have therefore tried to read every single resource about _javascript_,
ECMAScript and the DOM that has been written from a computer science
perspective. There are not that many, which might be a reason behind
the confusion.

Anyway: _javascript_ (a term owned by Sun, licensed to Mozilla, and used
by all browser vendors but Microsoft) is in all essence, as Liorean has
stated, a superset of ECMAScript 3.0. That is also the sentiment of
Brendan Eich - and should therefore be taken as a final word. (Anthony
was indeed wrong about this.) JScript as implemented in Internet
Explorer is roughly equivalent, but deviates in some small ways.

_javascript_ is a mix of Self, Scheme and C (according to the ECMAScript
3.1 draft, the "love child between Scheme and C" according to Brendan
Eich).

_javascript_ is indeed Object Oriented, but even though every script is
run within a host object - usually the window object of a browser - a
procedural style is possible to use. 90's DHTML scripts were usually
procedural and used document.write (which is not ECMAScript but part of
the DOM) in a way that reminds me of *standard streams*, which could be
provided by the host object, but usually aren't.

Public, private and protected methods and properties are not easily
implemented. Object Oriented design patterns (singletons, factories,
registry, adaptors...) can usually be emulated. Sometimes this is only
done through considerable wizardry using concepts like lambda and
closures.

ECMAScript 4.0 aka _javascript_ 2.0 was supposed to get a limited class
based inheritance mechanism to *complement* the prototype based one we
use today. Those plans have been halted. ECMAScript "Harmony" will most
probably *not* get any class based inheritance.

(At least two _javascript_ engines (V8 and Squirrelfish Extreme) emulate
class based object creation as part of their just in time compilation,
but that really is a compiler issue.)

ECMASCript 3.1 will get a few new methods to facilitate easier
inheritance patterns. E.g. Object.freeze(). Many popular libraries also
have methods that facilitate OO-patterns.

As old school cut' n' paste coding is getting superseded by libraries
procedural code is becoming less seen and OO-style coding is getting
more used.

Indeed, using object chaining in JQuery et al, the programming is even
well on its way to become *declarative*.

Summary:

1. _javascript_ *is* OO.

2. _javascript_ uses a prototypal - class-less - inheritance mechanism.

3. Anyone writing a script can use procedural style, OO-style or even
make forays into a declarative style.

Nit picking on some stuff in the thread:

_javascript_ has no pure hash-tables, aka associative arrays. Object
properties can be used to emulate associative arrays, though. A PHP
programmer will feel very limited, though.

A _javascript_ object *is* not an array (once again Anthony got it
wrong). It can have methods as well as properties. Arrays
are however objects, and confusingly

typeof [ 1, 2 ]

evalutes to "object", not "array". A major design flaw.

The best known way to test for an array is:

Object.prototype.toString.apply(value) === '[object Array]'

Discovered by Mark Miller of Google.

>From a very strict computer science point of view averything in
_javascript_ is *not* an object. (No matter how much Alex "Dojo" Russel
et al. reiterates that mantra.) In practice everything is. _javascript_
has got a few "primitives" (numbers, strings, booleans, undefined).
Whenever a primitive is referenced with an OO-syntax it is converted
into its corresponding wrapper object. This was modeled after Java
according to Brendan, and he has stated that it probably was a bad
idea. (Search the ES4 mailing list for a reference.)

Lars Gunther

Sources:

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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 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 return functions values), or allow you to pass in
functions as values. Given that _javascript_ allows all those things,
much of those traditional OOP design patterns don't make much sense,
because they're getting around a limitation that doesn't exist.

I haven't extensively used the OOP facilities in PHP, I've always
found the syntax to be ugly as hell, I could never bring myself to
type that crap willingly. So unfortunately, I cannot speak
knowledgably about how difficult or hard it is in PHP.

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 1:17 AM, James Jeffery
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

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 it, but not the conventional way) and some
of the OOP design patterns are difficult to put into _javascript_.

I have the Apress book on _javascript_ Design Patterns, which helped alot when
learning OOP in JS.

Sorry my wording was wrong. I think the above is what I meant.

***
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] how come





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 a:hover?
  
-kevin
  
  
  
  
  
  
***
  
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

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 trying to  
debunk the notion of javascript being prototype. Not once did I say it  
does not have objects. Intact I offered that it does.


Regards,
Anthony.

Sent from my iPhone!

On 28/10/2008, at 7:40 AM, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


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. But OOP is not just about an  
"object".

There is a lot more involved.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of JavaScript - but it has faux  
classes and
objects, and this is why my opinion of JavaScript is that it is  
prototype,

not object.


First of all I'm assuming you meaning object-based and prototype-based
there, because the sentence as written just does not make sense.
Anyway, it's a false dichotomy because JavaScript is object-based AND
prototype-based. It's also object oriented.

Also, while you can say it's got faux classes (it actually has in the
ECMAScript specification, but nothing author accessible) those classes
have no greater importance to the author as they are not available to
user JavaScript.


Here's another such statement of yours:
2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Forgot to clarify one thing: ECMAScript is fully OO in my opinion,  
however

JavaScript is not a full implementation of ECMAScript, unfortunately.


This sounds like you're insinuating that while ECMAScript is fully
object oriented, JavaScript is not. That's just plain false.


Another one:
2008/10/27 Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

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?


Not user classes, no. Only implementation/host.


Can inheritance of JavaScript occur without prototype?


Not automatically, no. Why would it need another inheritance mechanism
in order to be object oriented?


[snip]
Object-oriented programming consists of native inheritance. Are you
suggesting that a prototypical approach to inheritance one in the  
same as

native inheritance?


Do you mean "native" as in the implementation language (machine
native, if you will) or "native" as in user JavaScript?

Anyway, the inheritance mechanism in JavaScript is prototype
delegation, and it certainly is the native method of inheritance for
JavaScript. It may or may not be the method of inheritance for host
objects, but that's another story.




2008/10/27 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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.


It's the core part of being a prototype-based language, so even if
you've not mentioned inheritance you've certainly talked about it. But
you have at several occasions mentioned inheritance, so that's beyond
the point.

I'm not sure why it is so bad that javascript be prototype-based? I  
have
said again and again that it still does have objects, sighted many  
sources
which state javascript as a prototype-based language and other  
examples for
the arguement along the way... It is still a good language and  
there is

nothing negative about prototype?


We're not arguing about that. We're arguing that it being
prototype-based is the very factor that makes it object oriented. But
you on the other hand have at least seemingly argued that it is not
object oriented, which is the point we've been addressing all along.

Anyway I only respond again because I don't like to be miss- 
represented. If
you still feel I am wrong and disprove of the wiki articles stating  
it is

prototype-based, you really should edit them as it must be a
miss-representation of javascript.


We're not arguing against the articles. We've been arguing constantly
throughout this thread that JavaScript may be prototype-based, but
that does not make it any less object oriented. And I don't think I'm
missrepresenting you at all when I say you've argued against that
point.
--
David "liorean" Andersson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cf

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 sure why it is so bad that javascript be prototype-based? I  
have said again and again that it still does have objects, sighted  
many sources which state javascript as a prototype-based language and  
other examples for the arguement along the way... It is still a good  
language and there is nothing negative about prototype?


Anyway I only respond again because I don't like to be miss- 
represented. If you still feel I am wrong and disprove of the wiki  
articles stating it is prototype-based, you really should edit them as  
it must be a miss-representation of javascript.


Regards,
Anthony.

Sent from my iPhone!

On 28/10/2008, at 12:43 AM, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


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 SpiredMonkey, even though much of it has been changed since
then. It was designed to be object oriented through usage of the
prototypal inheritance scheme, so it's pretty much all three at once.
Since everything in JavaScript is an object, it can be said to be
object based as well as object oriented. Anthony Ziebell's argument
that it's prototype-based rather than object oriented is a false
dichotomy since prototypal inheritance is in fact one of the ways to
achieve objevt orientation. As such, a system can become object
oriented as a result of adding prototypal inheritance to an object
based system.

Anthony Ziebell is arguing that it's not object oriented based on the
false premise that classical inheritance is the way to achieve object
orientation and prototypal inheritance is not, despite himself linking
articles stating the contrary.
--
David "liorean" Andersson


***
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

2008-10-26 Thread Anthony


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





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





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, an

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

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

2008-10-24 Thread Anthony

Word.

Regards,
Anthony.

Sent from my iPhone!

On 24/10/2008, at 11:32 PM, "James Jeffery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:

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++.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
]

On Behalf Of Brett Patterson
> Sent: 24 October 2008 02:25
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please
>
>
> Oh, most definitely agreed. Sorry if I started an argument, I only
wanted to know
> what it was. I don't know if it is just me, but this topic seems  
to be

too
> controversial. Thank you all for answering.

Actually, I think you have stumbled upon one of the keys to this  
issue:

it is controversial amongst people who are not familiar with the
language. Most of the confusion comes from people who are experts in  
PHP

or C++, and who believe that makes them expert in OO, or indeed
University Lecturers that are proficient in neither.

If you ask people who are truly expert with JavaScript, they will all
tell you that it _is_  Object-Oriented, not least because it is  
entirely
object-based: the first rule of JavaScript is: "Everything is an  
object.

A function is an object, a string is an object, and an array is an
object."

As others have said, most other OO languages implement class-based
inheritance, often as a result of their linear underpinnings. People  
who

are used to this approach, then go through some horrible kludges to
simulate this unnecessarily in JavaScript apps, and then complain that
the results are horrible. Prototype-based inheritance is a very
different beast, and one that is much better suited to the way that
JavaScript is supposed to be used.

Final point of confusion:  the library called 'Prototype'. Stupid  
name -
never used a languages reserved word for anything: it is reserved  
for a

good reason, but is now better known than object.prototype itself!

Regards,
Mike

Mike Brockington
Web Development Specialist

www.calcResult.com
www.stephanieBlakey.me.uk
www.edinburgh.gov.uk

This message does not reflect the opinions of any entity other than  
the

author alone.

***
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] Nested List Problem





That might work - but then I don't know how the menu
scripts work. If they rely on ID's, then you will need to refactor.

Lynette Smith wrote:

  
  
  

I see what you are asking now - this would probably need to be
refactored to have it validate.
    
Cheers,
Anthony.

  
Perhaps just change the id's to classes?
  
Kind regards
  
Lyn
  
  
***
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] Nested List Problem





Hi Lynette,

I see what you are asking now - this would probably need to be
refactored to have it validate.

Cheers,
Anthony.

Lynette Smith wrote:

  
  
Thanks Anthony - I've corrected that - but won't the repetition of 
's stop it validating?
  
The first list has a nested list correctly inside of the list item,
however your subsequent list items end the list item element before the
new nested list begins...

e.g:

WEED
SPECIES
                    
                        Watsonia
                        Oxalis
                        Carnation
Weed
                        Taro
                    

should be:

WEED
SPECIES
                    
                        Watsonia
                        Oxalis
                        Carnation
Weed
                        Taro
                    



  
Because of the repetition of  things like  it
is not validating.  The first section (only bit actually with pages)
looks good and works.
The example on A List Apart only dealt with subitems in the first
section  so I am not sure if I am meant to put in "subactive",
"current" and so on for every section or not.
For example, in the line  Projects, should that be
Projects?
Am I meant to put in  at the start of every
sub-section?
  

  
.
  
***
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] Nested List Problem





Hi Lynette,

The first list has a nested list correctly inside of the list item,
however your subsequent list items end the list item element before the
new nested list begins...

e.g:

WEED
SPECIES
                    
                        Watsonia
                        Oxalis
                        Carnation
Weed
                        Taro
                    

should be:

WEED
SPECIES
                    
                        Watsonia
                        Oxalis
                        Carnation
Weed
                        Taro
                    



Lynette Smith wrote:
Good
afternoon
  
Am using Russ Wheatley's Simple Nested Rollover List from A List Apart.
  

                    
                        HOME
                    
                        Operation
                        Projects
                        Committee and Members
                    
                    
                    
                WEED
SPECIES
                    
                        Watsonia
                        Oxalis
                        Carnation
Weed
                        Taro
                    
            
                PUBLICATIONS and so on...
  
Because of the repetition of  things like  it
is not validating.  The first section (only bit actually with pages)
looks good and works.
The example on A List Apart only dealt with subitems in the first
section  so I am not sure if I am meant to put in "subactive",
"current" and so on for every section or not.
For example, in the line  Projects, should that be
Projects?
Am I meant to put in  at the start of every
sub-section?
  
Thanks!
  
Lyn
  
  www.westernwebdesign.com.au
Perth, Western Australia
  
***
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

Whether _javascript_ is OOP is kind of a matter of
taste, rather than definition (Because there is no definition)
Agreed, hence the diverse arguments for / against,
and no way everyone would be able to agree on it. Perhaps we need to
write a standard on OO.

Thanks,
Anthony.

Breton Slivka wrote:

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Anthony Ziebell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

A 'superset' of ECMA3 which is not fully compliant. Right...

I think you're confused. Maybe you you're thinking of the w3c dom-
Which is a seperate standard and topic from _javascript_/ecmascript.
All implementations of _javascript_ in all the current browsers are
fully Ecmascript edition 3 compliant, so far as I'm aware. If you have
additional information about specific incompatibilities, I would be
extremely interested.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Anthony Ziebell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi Brett,

_javascript_ is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
_javascript_ is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but have
some similarities...

A language's method of inheritence is orthogonal to (has nothing to do
with) whether the language is object oriented. Inheritance is an OO
idea, so the fact that _javascript_ has inheritence of any kind pretty
well cements that it at least has object oriented capabilities. But it
goes further than that, because all values in _javascript_ inherit from
Object, and can be treated as objects, making _javascript_ a fully
object oriented language. It is not an imperative language with OO
features tacked on, like php5. _javascript_ is OO from the ground up.

The tricky thing here, and the part that I think is confusing you, is
that most languages described as OOP languages include an entity
called "Class" that _javascript_ doesn't appear to have. You might draw
from this the conclusion that if a language doesn't have "class", then
it is not OOP. Truth: "class" is just a random concept that quite a
lot of language designers happened to fixate on. "Class" is not
central to OOP. Object Orientation is *not* a computer science concept
with solid foundations in mathematics and philosophy. There is *no*
formal definition for what OOP is. There is no universally agreed on
method for determining whether something is or is not OOP. OOP was
just an idea from some guy named Alan Kay, that he used as the basis
for his language SmallTalk. He designed SmallTalk that way because it
felt right, and he thought that it saved time. The concept was useful
enough that it became popular. This makes OOP more of a meme than a
scientific theory, as such. read more here:
http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/smalltalk/byte_aug81/design_principles_behind_smalltalk.html

A later object oriented programming language called SELF showed that
classes were not necessarily the most important concept about Object
orientation. The most useful aspect of object orientation
historically, has been the bundling of code with the data it operates
on. Inheritence has recently been shown to be somewhat less important
and useful than it's been seen to be in the past. (deep inheritence is
bad practice in JAVA, for instance, in favor of interfaces). Alan Kay
once expressed surprise at how fixated on classes many later
programming languages have become, as he saw his concept of "message
passing" to be the most important aspect of the design.

_javascript_ is a language which is well documented to be a mashup
between 3 languages. It's a combination between SELF (Object
orientation, and prototype based inheretence), with scheme (functions
as first class values), dressed up with JAVA like syntax. (curly
braces)

_javascript_ contains all the important and useful parts of the object
orientation meme. Since _javascript_ everything in _javascript_ is an
object- including functions, you can bundle code along with data into
a single object, storing functions as values on the object. Objects
delegate missing properties and methods to their prototypes, providing
a scheme for direct instance-to-instance inheritence which mimmicks
message passing.

So there you have it. Whether _javascript_ is OOP is kind of a matter of
taste, rather than definition (Because there is no definition). It's a
bit like pondering whether Piet Mondrian was an artist, because he
didn't paint pictures of "real" things. Of course he is, but it's
confusing because Mondrian was unlike any other artist anyone had ever
seen. In the same way, _javascript_ is an OO language unlike any other
OOP language most people have seen. (most people haven't seen SELF, or
newtonscript, or io, or REBOL)

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

A 'superset' of ECMA3 which is not fully compliant.
Right...

liorean wrote:

2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Forgot to clarify one thing: ECMAScript is fully OO in my opinion, however
_javascript_ is not a full implementation of ECMAScript, unfortunately.

_javascript_ is a superset of ECMAScript. If ECMAScript is opbject
oriented, so is _javascript_.

As I mentioned, classes are not necessary or even important for a
language to be object oriented. Prototypal delegation is just one of
several methods of implementing inheritance in an object oriented
language. It doesn't make the language any less object oriented.

Please go have a read through this:http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html>

_javascript_ fulfills plenty of them.

2008/10/24 Brett Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Well, I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based_languages , and I see your points.
But, for arguments sake, let's say it is not prototype-based. Would it be
object-oriented, like Java or C++, or object-based?

Depends on what definition you use for either of those terms. Object
orientation? Java and C++ fail to live up to some of the possible
criteria for a language being object oriented. Object based? Do you
mean that every value is an object? If so, _javascript_ is that. Do you
mean that it uses prototypal inheritance? Then it is that. Do you mean
it has a limited form of object orientation without inheritance or
polymorphism? If so it is not, because it has those features.

I read these as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Object-based_programming_languages

What's worst is is that now I am confused. This seems too contradictory,
based on the articles linked.

That's because the definitions are fuzzy and broad. A language is
better described by what type of programming it facilitates than by
what it can be considered to be, anyway. _javascript_ uses prototype
delegation. That means that properties are looked up in the object
itself, and then in the prototype of the object, and so on untill the
top of the prototype chain has been reached. It's a mode of direct
implementation-to-implementation inheritance. Classical inheritance on
the other hand sets up a chain or tree of classes, and objects are
instances of those classes. In other words objects do not inherit
directly from other objects but rather from this chain or tree of
classes - a template chain if you want, though in some of these
langauges the word template means something different. These languages
typically also have a type-to-class correspondence and a deep type
hierarchy system. Some have a separate interface scheme that is about
object and function signatures connected with the type system but that
does not allow code inheritance.
Some have only this and no implementation inheritance mechanism.

***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please





You can call it whatever you like, I am / was just
trying to answer your question, based on my experiences and perceptions.

Cheers,
Anthony.

Brett Patterson wrote:
Well,
I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based_languages
, and I see your points. But, for arguments sake, let's say it is not
prototype-based. Would it be object-oriented, like Java or C++, or
object-based?
  
I read these as well:
  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-based
  
and
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Object-based_programming_languages

  
What's worst is is that now I am confused. This seems too
contradictory, based on the articles linked.
  
***
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





Forgot to clarify one thing: ECMAScript is fully OO
in my opinion, however _javascript_ is not a full implementation of
ECMAScript, unfortunately.

Thanks,
Anthony.

Brett Patterson wrote:
I
didn't see that. :) But as I have read in other areas, _javascript_ is
based on ECMAScript. And Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a
  programming paradigm that uses "objects" and their interactions
to design applications and computer programs. Is this correct?
  
  On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Hassan
Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
  
Brett Patterson wrote:

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?



How about the standard itself? :-)

<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf>

 Overview
  ...

  ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for
  performing computations and manipulating computational objects
  within a host environment.

HTH,
-- 
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

                         dream.  code.




***
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.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please





Sure, that's what an "object" is. But OOP is not
just about an "object". There is a lot more involved.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of _javascript_ - but it has faux classes
and objects, and this is why my opinion of _javascript_ is that it is
prototype, not object.

Cheers,
Anthony.

Brett Patterson wrote:
I
didn't see that. :) But as I have read in other areas, _javascript_ is
based on ECMAScript. And Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a
  programming paradigm that uses "objects" and their interactions
to design applications and computer programs. Is this correct?
  
  On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Hassan
Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
  
Brett Patterson wrote:

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?



How about the standard itself? :-)

<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf>

 Overview
  ...

  ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for
  performing computations and manipulating computational objects
  within a host environment.

HTH,
-- 
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

                         dream.  code.




***
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.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

Your point's are valid - my only real point here is
that it is more of a prototype-based language, than object.

Thanks,
Anthony.

liorean wrote:

Brett Patterson wrote:
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?

There's many different things people mean when they talk about object
orientation. If they talk about the Java mode of object orientation,
then _javascript_ isn't object oriented but is pretty close. On the
other hand, if they talk about the Self mode of object orientation,
then _javascript_ is definitely object oriented, while Java has it's
flaws. There is no single definition that people agree on, only an
arbitrary number of points on a list where no single language uses a
metaphor that covers them all.

Everything in _javascript_ is an object. Objects inherit in a run time
delegation fashion from other objects in the prototype chain, a model
inspired by Self. Types are placed on values, not variables, but
everything has a type. Encapsulation comes from closures.

2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

_javascript_ is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
_javascript_ is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but have
some similarities...

Class based inheritance is not necessary for a language to be object
oriented. Prototype delegation as mode of inheritance is less common
as language designs go, but it's just as powerful if not more so.

Above all, _javascript_ is an object based language.

It has imperative and functional properties, it has a
statement-_expression_ curlies-and-semicolons, it has object orientation
and higher order programming features, it has reified closures and
lexical scope with a few dynamic scope features etc. It's a hybrid
language. But it does have object orientation.

***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please





Hi Brett,

_javascript_ objects are augmented with prototype. It should be noted
that the example you provided also notes that the dot notation is
merely syntactic sugar - meaning it is just a little bit of eye-candy
which provides no extra functionality.

_javascript_ objects are merely arrays. This is why they are not real
objects. Objects and arrays are totally different.

Cheers,
Anthony.

Brett Patterson wrote:
Hi
Anthony,
  
What about this link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_javascript_
Under Features --> Dynamic Programming?
  
  On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Anthony
Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
  

Hi Brett,

_javascript_ is commonly referred to as 'object-orientated' but really,
_javascript_ is 'prototype-based'. They do have different meanings, but
have some similarities...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

Cheers,
Anthony.



Brett Patterson wrote:
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?
  
***
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.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please