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?
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Webb, KerryA [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
A brief addition to this: starting next January, anyone (not just
HREOC/AHRC) will have the right to take an action to their
state/territory Supreme Court if they feel that they've been
discriminated against.
Kerry
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
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
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:
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
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
2008/10/27 Anthony [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My arguement was that while javascript has objects, it is indeed
prototype-based
Oh, we're not disputing that. But look at some of your earlier comments.
This for instance:
2008/10/24 Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sure, that's what an object is.
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
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
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
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:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Brett Patterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. But, one final question. Was the first ever implementation of
JavaScript designed to be object-oriented, object-based, or prototype-based?
Thank you all.
Here is Brenden Eich, Javascript's creator, pontificating
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
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
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
The list-style appears on the li element. The selector li a:hover
matches the a element, which isn't display: list-item and so can't
have a list marker. Additionally, CSS provides no way to select an
element based on its children, so you can't match the list item based on
the hover state of a
2008/10/27 Anthony [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not once did I hear someone say it was prototype-based. Intact others have
flat out denied it.
The question was is it either object or prototype. I merely stated if
anything it should be seen as prototype, but it does have objects.
Now you're doing that
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
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
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.
2008/10/28 Mathew Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
All this talk over JavaScript not supporting classes, is incorrect. I put
together a little demo of classical class-based inheritence.
The only real limitation is that you can't do protected members and
friends and the syntax might be
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mathew/js/
I hope this helps clear things up a bit.
That's support for classes in the same way C has support for classes
though - you can design them on top of the language, but you don't get
support for it for ordinary language elements or for built in
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
Have you tried:
ul li:hover
{
list-style-type: circle;
}
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:04 PM, kevin mcmonagle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The list-style appears on the li element. The selector li a:hover
matches the a element, which isn't display: list-item and so can't
have a list marker.
2008/10/28 Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is owned
by Sun? Or just the Java part? And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in
Internet Explorer.
Yes, it's a registred trademark of Sun, licenced to Netscape once upon
a time as
The term Javascript is indeed owned by Sun. The implementation of
Ecmascript in IE is called JScript, not Javascript, so it doesn't
infringe the trademark (technically, but it's similar enough that
people can still easily think that IE calls it Javascript)
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Brett
Brett Patterson wrote:
I am sorry, but I must ask. Are you saying that the term JavaScript is
owned by Sun?
Yes, and googling javascript trademark gives a first hit of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
And, yes, JavaScript is implemented in Internet Explorer.
And, no, the same
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:
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
I need to write a print style sheet and have a particular element on
the page print at a specific absolute size (85mm by 35mm). I've set
the size using the mm units in the style sheet, but the element is
printing at 65mm wide.
From what I can see, mm (and cm) are well supported measurements in
Hello!
As an independent accessibility consultant, I was heartened by India's
ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, and especially with Articles 9 and 21 (mandating online
accessibility). However, over the last two years, little or no work
has been
32 matches
Mail list logo
