Re: [WSG] javascript errors still

Josh, Mainly to rule out any problems that has to do with running scripts off the filesystem, since Marvin mentioned something about setting his security zone in IE. IE is quite picky about those things. Steven On 04/08/2010, at 3:01 PM, Josh Godsiff wrote: > Hi Marvin > > I haven't had a c

Re: [WSG] javascript errors still

Hi Marvin I haven't had a chance to go through your code properly yet, but glancing through it, I'll suggest that the jQuery javascript library could help in making your code a great deal more simple, and less likely to have bugs. Also, Steven - why would a web-server be

Re: [WSG] javascript errors still

Hi Marvin, As for your pasted code, unfortunately it's very difficult to debug without actually running the application and see how the error occurs. What you can do maybe is to try the IE8 Developer tools (I haven't used it much), and see if the error happens on a certain line number, then co

[WSG] javascript errors still

hi. did any one take a look at my code. i sent yesterday? uninstalled internet explorer 8. then reinstalled it. went to the security zone. could not seem to set it to 40% and went to the custom link. made sure that previous active ex, did not need to prompt. and enabled it. went to the internet to

Re: [WSG] JavaScript courses in Sydney

Mmmm, quality ... And a trip across the Tasman. I'll run that past the boss :) On 13/10/2009, at 8:52 PM, Mike Brown wrote: David McKinnon wrote: Hi, Can anyone recommend a good JavaScript course in Sydney? I've been teaching myself for a few years, so I have a reasonable idea how to write

Re: [WSG] JavaScript courses in Sydney

David McKinnon wrote: Hi, Can anyone recommend a good JavaScript course in Sydney? I've been teaching myself for a few years, so I have a reasonable idea how to write unobtrusive JavaScript and have mucked around with jQuery, but feel I need something practical to really consolidate my knowle

[WSG] JavaScript courses in Sydney

Hi, Can anyone recommend a good JavaScript course in Sydney? I've been teaching myself for a few years, so I have a reasonable idea how to write unobtrusive JavaScript and have mucked around with jQuery, but feel I need something practical to really consolidate my knowledge and move forwar

RE: [WSG] ? JAVASCRIPT ? Abort loading image

6:01 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] ? JAVASCRIPT ? Abort loading image Good day all, Maybe I'm wrong but while modifying the dom through javascript, deleting images won't stop browsers to download the sources neither to ignore the abort event. I tried to change

[WSG] 「 JAVASCRIPT 」 Abort loading image

Good day all, Maybe I'm wrong but while modifying the dom through javascript, deleting images won't stop browsers to download the sources neither to ignore the abort event. I tried to change the source to a spacer.gif or to remove the src attribute before deleting the image tag, browsers still i

RE: [WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying within HTML

Section 18.2.1 of the W3C HTML 4.01 Specification also provides that the "type" attribute should be used to perform the function previously carried out by the

Re: [WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying within HTML

-kingdom.co.uk http://www.hotels-london-hotels.com http://www.hotels-edinburgh-scotland-hotels.com From: Brett Patterson Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:23 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying within HTML I am not sure about the most recent standards

Re: [WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying within HTML

Thank you! -- Brett P. On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:48 AM, David Dixon wrote: > The language attribute was deprecated in html 4, so I wouldn't advise > using it. > > see: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.1 > > Thanks, > > David > > > On 14/7/09 13:23, Brett Patterson

Re: [WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying within HTML

The language attribute was deprecated in html 4, so I wouldn't advise using it. see: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.1 Thanks, David On 14/7/09 13:23, Brett Patterson wrote: I am not sure about the most recent standards regarding the "language" attribute of the S

[WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying within HTML

I am not sure about the most recent standards regarding the "language" attribute of the SCRIPT tag within an HTML page, so I would like to know if it is still recommended to use the "language" attribute within the SCRIPT tag? And what version, if it is recommended to use that attribute, would one

Re: [WSG] javascript and accessibility [was: Accessible websites]

At 6/30/2009 01:41 AM, Mathew Robertson wrote: > I like to think that this is where web > development should begin, with JavaScript added to enhance, not to > provide core functionality. Why? Most modern accessibility aids (eg: font increase, JAWS, etc) use an existing browser, which can handl

[WSG] javascript and accessibility [was: Accessible websites]

> >I found that some of these elements take quite some time to > >integrate. Creating high-contrast CSS can take up to a day (or more > >if you're new to it), non-Javascript states usually more than an > >hour because you also have to edit the script. > By "non-Javascript states" do you mean t

Re: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility

As someone who's on the working group producing ARIA, I have to say the editors have done a pretty remarkable job in terms of documenting a specification that hasn't even advanced past Working Draft. First, there's the spec itself: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ Then there's the User Agent Implem

Re: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility

On 3/2/09 2:02 AM, "Mathew Robertson" wrote: Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just now that people are starting to care. But ARIA, as deployed by companies like Yahoo with its ARIA Menu [1] is very nice, but with JavaScript disabled there is a not-so-ni

Re: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility

Guys please, move this to a different topic, this ARIA issue has now clouded the original question. David -- David Dixon t: 07967 569 489 e: da...@digitaloasis.co.uk linkedin | http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidjdixon twitter | http://twitter.com/daviddixon Matt Morgan-May wrote: As someone w

Re: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility

On 3/2/09 2:02 AM, "Mathew Robertson" wrote: > Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just > now that people are starting to care. Not sure what value you were hoping to add to the conversation, but MSAA, the Windows accessibility API, didn't come out until April

RE: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility - ARIA

ehalf Of Mathew Robertson Sent: 02 March 2009 10:03 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility > David Dixon wrote: > > Interesting blog entry by the creators of the Cappuccino project > (http://cappuccino.org) on the subject on Web Accessibility

Re: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility

Mathew Robertson wrote: > Its been possible to do ARIA style accessibility since about 1995 - its just now that people are starting to care. > > Mathew Robertson Before this question gets sidetracked, the request was for opinion on the position of the distinction of accessibility vs availabili

Re: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility

michael.brocking...@bt.com wrote: David, I think you are reading things differently to me. I don't know the authors true intention, but I read his words as being a call for "anyone who wants to see ARIA implemented" to join their team, not necessarily "someone who is on the ARIA team". Thanks M

Re: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility

> David Dixon wrote: > > Interesting blog entry by the creators of the Cappuccino project > (http://cappuccino.org) on the subject on Web Accessibility vs > JavaScript Availability: > > http://rossboucher.com/2009/02/26/accessibility-degradation-in-cappuccino > > > Personally im in favou

RE: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility

lto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of David Dixon Sent: 01 March 2009 14:33 To: li...@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Javascript & Accessibility Interesting blog entry by the creators of the Cappuccino project (http://cappuccino.org) on the subject on Web Accessibility vs JavaScr

[WSG] Javascript & Accessibility

Interesting blog entry by the creators of the Cappuccino project (http://cappuccino.org) on the subject on Web Accessibility vs JavaScript Availability: http://rossboucher.com/2009/02/26/accessibility-degradation-in-cappuccino Personally im in favour of the distinction he makes, but the expect

RE: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

> -Original Message- > From: Chris Knowles > does that actually work? My understanding is that one problem ARIA > addresses is that when javascript alters the DOM, assistive technologies > don't necessarily get notified of the changes. So do they get notified > that you've injected ARIA att

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

Chris Taylor wrote: > Adding ARIA attributes using JavaScript is therefore part of progressive > enhancement does that actually work? My understanding is that one problem ARIA addresses is that when javascript alters the DOM, assistive technologies don't necessarily get notified of the changes.

RE: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

> From: Chris Knowles > yes, so you still run your code through the validator and make sure it > only fails on the ARIA attributes - that way you save yourself a whole > lot of trouble. I don't really understand inserting attributes with > javascript just so you get a tick from the validator? Mayb

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

Chris Taylor wrote: >> From: Chris Knowles >> 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

RE: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

> From: Chris Knowles > 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 val

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

I thought a bit more about this and I realised perhaps a better option would be to display the JS-injected messages and errors that a screen reader could not read but upon submission of the form, reload the page and provide all the messages and errors again (the form could not be completed

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 brow

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

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 attribute

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

Sorry, I was a bit vague. I'm saying do all validation server-side. If you're looking for a quick and dirty solution to the element injection issues when screen readers are being used, you can try setting focus back to the new element's parent, though shifting focus is a practice often frowned upon

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. Than

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

Hmm, I made a typo. Coffee time. On 1/20/09, 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 gli

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

> 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 goi

RE: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

There were a couple of articles on SitePoint (if I recall correctly) six months ago or so, that covered this, in a fairly positive light. I'm afraid I'm not in a position to chase after them right now; perhaps someone else does have the time? Mike ***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

If there were further communication between the user and server between submission of the form that would entail a page reload then a screen user shouldn’t have an issue, whereas if JavaScript would run in the background and inject errors or suggestions as it thinks the user makes them (e.g

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

> Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute? Sadly, yes. But there is some hope: it is possible that ARIA will be accepted in HTML5 and there is an initiative to provide validation for (X)HTML+ARIA: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Sep/0381.html Validator.nu already has expe

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-wa

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

> 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/

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

I'll confess my ignorance on this issue, but how do screen readers handle DHTML type injection of content into the DOM? Without using alerts, you could add the warning into the actual document. But how does a screen reader know the document has changed? L. On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Anthon

[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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript as External File vs. Internal Code and linking to images

> Recently, I experimented with changing check boxes with JavaScript. If the > user clicked on the words next to the check box, then the box would be > checked, once checked if the user clicked again, then the box would be > unchecked. As someone has mentioned, that's precisely what putting the te

Re: [WSG] JavaScript as External File vs. Internal Code and linking to images

> Tatham Oddie > > call:+61414275989 , > call:+61280113982, > skype:tathamoddie, msn:tat...@oddie.com.au, tatham.oddie.com.au > > > > *From:* li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] *On > Behalf Of *Brett Patterson > *Sent:* Wednesday, 7 J

RE: [WSG] JavaScript as External File vs. Internal Code and linking to images

4275989, call:+61280113982, skype:tathamoddie, msn:tat...@oddie.com.au, <http://tatham.oddie.com.au/> tatham.oddie.com.au From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Brett Patterson Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2009 12:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subj

Re: [WSG] JavaScript as External File vs. Internal Code and linking to images

Brett Patterson wrote: Recently, I experimented with changing check boxes with JavaScript. If the user clicked on the words next to the check box, then the box would be checked, once checked if the user clicked again, then the box would be unchecked. Sounds like a would have been easier. I t

[WSG] JavaScript as External File vs. Internal Code and linking to images

Recently, I experimented with changing check boxes with JavaScript. If the user clicked on the words next to the check box, then the box would be checked, once checked if the user clicked again, then the box would be unchecked. I wound up having to apply the same code to the check box itself in ord

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please - let blocks

OK. Thanks On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brett Patterson skrev: > >> I like that explanation. I get it now. Thanks. One more quick question >> though, what is a let-block, in general? Thanks. That really does make it a >> lot easier to understand. >> >>

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please - let blocks

Brett Patterson skrev: I like that explanation. I get it now. Thanks. One more quick question though, what is a let-block, in general? Thanks. That really does make it a lot easier to understand. Brett Normally JavaScript does not have block scope. var foo = 1; { foo = 2; } alert(foo);

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please - versions

I like that explanation. I get it now. Thanks. One more quick question though, what is a let-block, in general? Thanks. That really does make it a lot easier to understand. Brett On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brett Patterson skrev: > >> I am sorry, but I

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

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please - object methods are properties

Keryx Web skrev: 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 ... It can have methods as well as properties. Nitpicking

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please - versions

Brett Patterson skrev: I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is owned by Sun? Or just the Java part? And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in Internet Explorer. I see that your question has already been answered. I will give some additional points. Mocha was Br

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

JScript was originally created as an exact reverse engineering of Javascript (including the mistakes), so that IE could read pages with javascript on them. This was of course, during the browser wars when they were competing for features. Jscript has fallen a bit behind Javascript by now, so there

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

There is only one JavaScript, as created by Netscape. Though it can be used for other things, such as programming an application, I think that is worded right. On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Hassan Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > liorean wrote: > > Anyway, by the time the first ful

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008/10/28 Brett Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Actually it did say it is heavily object-based. But now, under Dynamic > Programming --> Objects as associated arrays, it says it is almost entirely > object-based. Looks like it just got updated. Internet Explorer does read > JavaScript, but does i

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

liorean wrote: Anyway, by the time the first full version of Navigator that had it was released (2.0) it had already been renamed to JavaScript, so I'd hardly say it was released under the LiveScript name. Well, at this point I don't know exactly when a version of Navigator was released

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

ead JavaScript as JScript? On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Brett Patterson > > Sent: 28 October 2008 12:35 > > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > > Subject: Re: [

RE: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Patterson > Sent: 28 October 2008 12:35 > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please > > > When you say support, are you saying that Internet Explorer will not exec

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

When you say support, are you saying that Internet Explorer will not execute JavaScript, or it will execute JavaScript as JScript? And in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript link you provided it states that JavaScript is heavily object-based, so should I assume this as well to be correct?

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

> liorean wrote: >> (Netscape had originally intended to use the name LiveScript.) 2008/10/28 Hassan Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Actually, it was initially released as LiveScript and renamed later. IIRC Navigator 2.0 also supported a mocha: pseudo-protocol like the javascript: pseudo-protoco

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008/10/28 liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Yes, it's a registred trademark of Sun, Actually a Trademark, not a Registred Trademark, apparently. -- David "liorean" Andersson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guid

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

Brett Patterson wrote: I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is owned by Sun? Yes, and googling "javascript trademark" gives a first hit of And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in Internet Explorer. And, no, the same

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] Javascript classical inheritence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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 ar

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

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

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++

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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 addressin

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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 ret

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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 tryi

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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 sur

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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,

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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 SpiredMo

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

Anthony wrote: My sentiments exactly. On 27/10/2008, at 3:46 PM, "Breton Slivka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm afraid I will have to throw up my hands and give up on you. You are a lost cause. you cannot be reached. Oh, good. Can we return the list to web standards now? ***

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

My sentiments exactly. Regards, Anthony. Sent from my iPhone! On 27/10/2008, at 3:46 PM, "Breton Slivka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have in fact read your references, not only just now, but again and again I have read the wikipedia articles on the subject many moons ago. Frankly I fail to

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

I have in fact read your references, not only just now, but again and again I have read the wikipedia articles on the subject many moons ago. Frankly I fail to see how any of it contradicts my position, but they do contradict your position. I'm afraid I will have to throw up my hands and give up o

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 co

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so no > further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you to two > more resources. If you feel that the first ever implement

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 we

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Breton, > > There is a difference between the use of object and object-oriented > programming. Yes you say that, but you never go into any detail about it. In what way in particular is the concept and use of "objects" i

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luke, > > Discrediting c++ has nothing to do with the question "Is JavaScript > object-orientated?". With that, and in closing, I would like to point out > that my comments were based on the actual question - asking if J

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,

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

Indeed, as Alan Kay inventor of Smalltalk and OOP said "I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind." cheers L liorean wrote: 2008/10/24 James Jeffery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The language itself is NOT object-orientated, its proto-type based. It can b

Replacing a paragraph with JS [was: Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please]

Brett Patterson wrote: On a different note, I have a problem with the JavaScript code I am writing. If you're going to begin a new topic, you should always begin a new thread to avoid confusing the old thread with irrelevant material and to attract potential readers who are disinterested in t

  1   2   3   4   >