Re: [WSG] Implication of empty divs
If you use a tool such as tidy html in xhtml mode it will delete your empty tags... probably a setting to turn that feature off, but something to think about... Cheers, Anthony. Gerard Hynes (Gmail) wrote: My advice below. Cheers, Gerard On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Ben Lau bensan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Are there any (seriously) bad implications of having empty DIVs around your HTML document? I try to avoid using them personally, but there are cases where the visual design has forced me to add empty divs (or spans) just to achieve the look. Apart from adding extra weight and cluttering the document, I understand screen readers do not pick up divs and spans? I'm not expert about screen readers, but I did run a site I upgraded through JAWS with some interesting results. The site had alot of pnbsp;/p due to the CMS they were using and JAWS would translate this to/speak out "blank" which wasn't ideal. Am not sure if it would do the same for p/p or div/div or div /. Would I be better off to insert these meaningless decorative tags using _javascript_ and modifying the DOM, while non-_javascript_ users would see a more cut down version of the design? Do screen readers pick up _javascript_ and events? _javascript_ solution could work, but I would run your page through a screen reader first and see if you're happy with the result. You can download demo of JAWS from http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp You'll probably identify other areas of content that could be improved for screen readers. He's a good article about the topic http://www.webaim.org/techniques/screenreader/ Cheers, ben *** 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.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***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
_javascript_ should be implemented only to supplement / layer existing functionality. Your site should operate just fine without it... There are always exceptions to this rule however you shouldn't let _javascript_ dictate how you code. Thanks, Anthony. Sven Dowideit wrote: I have JS disabled, and only enable it for sites which I decide I need it working. Due to the way I work, I often have hundreds of browser tabs open and I can leave them open for weeks with JS off. I also find it educational to see which sites have non-functional forms because they have used JS only to drive them, or who's layout is totally governed by multimedia For example, this last month we were looking into buying a car, and the only conclusion I could come to, is that most car manufacturers are not interested in selling cars, rather than they are failing media outlet wannabes. Sven ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***
Re: [WSG] Validating (X)HTML + ARIA
Thanks Benjamin. The only troubles we face with = XHTML 1.1 and = HTML5 is related to progressive enhancement. It's more of a business decision... do we enhance our sites and make them a whole lot more accessible, meanwhile dropping support for older browsers? Or do we sit and wait until older browsers no longer have a market share and leave our visually impaired visitors in the dark? Someone mentioned using _javascript_ to implement ARIA parameters. This is a good idea... but just how accessible would that be to a vision impaired visitor with _javascript_ turned off? Thanks, Anthony. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: On 20/1/09 06:24, Anthony Ziebell wrote: Is it true XHTML 1.1 supports modularization and thus, ARIA, except for the role attribute / values? I'm not sure I understand the question. "Modularization", in XHTML's case, refers to the splitting of XHTML itself into modules. This allows the definition of profiles of XHTML by adding modules together or the definition of compound "XHTML family" schema that mix a selection of XHTML modules with elements, attributes, and entities from other namespaces. See: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-html-in-xml-19990224/#mods http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/introduction.html#s_intro_whatismod XHTML 1.1 is a profile of XHTML defined by adding XHTML modules together. A strictly conforming XHTML 1.1 document cannot include ARIA attributes: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/conformance.html#strict http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html#docconf Modularization doesn't mean much either way for ARIA usage, since: 1. If you wanted to mix ARIA and XHTML in an XHTML family schema, all modularization would allow you to do is ban existing bits of XHTML (say, presentational elements) from that schema. 2. If you just want to mix ARIA and XHTML in an XML document, you don't need an XHTML family schema - especially if you want to use XHTML 1.1's profile wholesale. XHTML 1.1 (latest draft) allows XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html as defined in RFC2854 or application/xhtml+xml as defined in RFC3236. The first edition of XHTML 1.1 doesn't mention media types: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/ The latest public draft of the second edition (February 2007) says: "XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type text/html as defined in [RFC2854] or application/xhtml+xml as defined in [RFC3236]." The latest editor's draft (January 2009) says: "XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]" http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml11-20090106/conformance.html#strict Note that "SHOULD" has a specific meaning defined in RFC 2119: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt . Both the drafts refer us to W3C's note on XHTML media types: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ Which has no normative status, but was a summary of the HTML Working Group's view of best practice in 2002, and says XHTML 1.1 "SHOULD NOT" be served as text/html, "MAY" be served as application/xml or text/xml, and "SHOULD" be served as application/xhtml+xml. (Again, these are RFC 2119 terms). But this note is itself being revised by the XHTML 2 Working Group: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml-media-types-20090116/ It is still a note with no normative status, and this time "should" etc. are not defined with reference to RFC 2119. The note suggests best practices for serving XHTML documents as text/html: * They should "conform" to a set of guidelines, ultimately a reworking of the guidelines at the end of XHTML 1.0 * They should not be XHTML Family documents that mix XHTML with features from other namespaces (e.g. SVG, MathML, YourMadeUpML). What rather confuses all this is that there is _another_ W3C Working Group that is simultaneously defining how text/html and XML features in the XHTML namespace ( http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/ ) should actually be processed, the new HTML WG: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ This is exciting as it looks like we are so close to being able to implement websites which have a much higher level of accessibility. If you think a major barrier to ARIA adoption is that there is no way to use ARIA in your document and conform to a W3C Standard, then discussions around including ARIA in HTML5, the drafting of XHTML 1.2 (which includes ARIA), and the gradual standardization of ARIA itself are of significantly more interest than any draft of XHTML 1.1. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.c
Re: [WSG] Validating (X)HTML + ARIA
Oh, also... there is a requirement for our pages to validate (hence I can only see JavaScript as a valid option at this point?) Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: On 20/1/09 22:47, Anthony Ziebell wrote: It's more of a business decision... do we enhance our sites and make them a whole lot more accessible, meanwhile dropping support for older browsers? Other than an accessibility technology inspecting the DOM for ARIA attributes, what makes you think that the presence or absence of ARIA attributes in particular makes any (real world) difference to compatibility if the user is using a browser that does not implement any functionality for those attributes other than inserting them into the DOM? Surely what makes the big difference to accessibility for users of older user agents is the absence of an accessibility infrastructure for certain DHTML widgets and behaviours that works in those user agents? Or do we sit and wait until older browsers no longer have a market share and leave our visually impaired visitors in the dark? Someone mentioned using JavaScript to implement ARIA parameters. This is a good idea... Why? but just how accessible would that be to a vision impaired visitor with JavaScript turned off? As accessible as your page normally is with JavaScript turned off to the same user. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis *** 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.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility
Server side validation is of course a must... however, if the visually impaired visitor has _javascript_ turned on and these error elements are created, they won't exactly get to the server side validation now, will they? ARIA looks good, looking forward to it getting out of draft status. Thanks, Anthony. james.duc...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm, I made a typo. Coffee time. On 1/20/09, james.duc...@gmail.com james.duc...@gmail.com wrote: after all it's impossible to tell those users using an accessibility aid like a screen reader from those who do not, and hey, the growing number of users who purposefully disable _javascript_ won't see the glitzy _javascript_ injected errors anyway. Agreed, and any decent validation is going to be done server-side validation anyway, so you're going to have to (or at least you should) implement the server-side responses in any case. - James -- James Ducker Web Developer http://www.studioj.net.au ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***
Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility
My only concern with a draft is that things change... Chris Knowles wrote: Anthony Ziebell wrote: ARIA looks good, looking forward to it getting out of draft status. I wouldn't be waiting for ARIA to get out of draft before using it :) It has pretty good support in browsers already so get stuck in. And because essentially all you are doing with ARIA is adding attributes to tags, the worst that can happen is your pages no longer validate - but who cares if you are making them more accessible? ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***
Re: [WSG] Validating (X)HTML + ARIA
Is it true XHTML 1.1 supports modularization and thus, ARIA, except for the role attribute / values? XHTML 1.1 (latest draft) allows XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html as defined in RFC2854 or application/xhtml+xml as defined in RFC3236. This is exciting as it looks like we are so close to being able to implement websites which have a much higher level of accessibility. Frank Palinkas wrote: Hi All, If you haven't seen this yet, it may be of practical use when and if needed: Validating (X)HTML + ARIA: http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=107 Written by Steve Faulkner, Technical Director - TPG (The Paciello Group) Europe, Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium from his blog. Med vennlig hilsen / Kind regards, Frank M. Palinkas Technical Writer, Opera Software http://dev.opera.com/articles/accessibility/ http://frank.helpware.net *** 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.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Microformats Accessibility
Hey Ben, Just a note... for now the following should be used instead: span class="name"human valuespan class="value"machine value/span/span The span class="value" title="machine value"/span 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] 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: /span class="name"human valuespan class="value"machine value/span/span/ 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
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***
[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] JavaScript and Accessibility
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***
Re: [WSG] Title attribute
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:
a href="" title="More information on
the Australian DDA and web accessibility issues"Web accessibility
issues/a
But a search in Google will not return this page.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=enq=site%3Acogentis.com.au+Australian+DDAbtnG=Google+Searchmeta=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
jko...@fairfaxdigital.com.au 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. a href="" title="Latest
News from InTheSticks"Local news/a. 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***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
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] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
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] XHTML Standard question
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:input type="text" required="required; include:@" /). -- 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
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] 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
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.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. asideArrays 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./aside >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: MDC, including https://developer.mozilla.org/En/About_JavaScript ES 3.0 spec
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
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
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
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 or
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
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.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
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
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
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
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:uri: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
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) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webst
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: lia href=""WEED SPECIES/a/li ul id="subnavlist" li id="subactive"a href="" id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li lia href=""Oxalis/a/li lia href=""Carnation Weed/a/li lia href=""Taro/a/li /ul should be: lia href=""WEED SPECIES/a ul id="subnavlist" li id="subactive"a href="" id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li lia href=""Oxalis/a/li lia href=""Carnation Weed/a/li lia href=""Taro/a/li /ul /li Lynette Smith wrote: Good afternoon Am using Russ Wheatley's Simple Nested Rollover List from A List Apart. div id="nav" ul id="navlist" li id="active"a href="" id="current"HOME/a ul id="subnavlist" li id="subactive"a href="" id="subcurrent"Operation/a/li lia href=""Projects/a/li lia href=""Committee and Members/a/li /ul /li lia href=""WEED SPECIES/a/li ul id="subnavlist" li id="subactive"a href="" id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li lia href=""Oxalis/a/li lia href=""Carnation Weed/a/li lia href=""Taro/a/li /ul lia href=""PUBLICATIONS/a/li and so on... Because of the repetition of things like ul id="subnavlist" 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 lia href=""Projects/a/li, should that be li id="subactive"a href="" id="subcurrent"Projects/a/li? Am I meant to put in ul id="subnavlist" 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] 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 ul id'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: lia href=""WEED SPECIES/a/li ul id="subnavlist" li id="subactive"a href="" id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li lia href=""Oxalis/a/li lia href=""Carnation Weed/a/li lia href=""Taro/a/li /ul should be: lia href=""WEED SPECIES/a ul id="subnavlist" li id="subactive"a href="" id="subcurrent"Watsonia/a/li lia href=""Oxalis/a/li lia href=""Carnation Weed/a/li lia href=""Taro/a/li /ul /li Because of the repetition of things like ul id="subnavlist" 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 lia href=""Projects/a/li, should that be li id="subactive"a href="" id="subcurrent"Projects/a/li? Am I meant to put in ul id="subnavlist" 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
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] desktop application usability
Naveen, You are probably better off searching for a language specific standards group - I'm sure some people can help you here, but most of the questions posted to this list appear to be web related. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Where can Iearn more about desktop applications usability and standards? Thanking you Naveen Bhaskar *** 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]***
