[WSG] javascript errors still

2010-08-03 Thread Marvin Hunkin
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

Re: [WSG] javascript errors still

2010-08-03 Thread Steven Tan
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

Re: [WSG] javascript errors still

2010-08-03 Thread Josh Godsiff
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 http://jquery.com 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

2010-08-03 Thread Steven Tan
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript courses in Sydney

2009-10-13 Thread Mike Brown
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript courses in Sydney

2009-10-13 Thread David McKinnon
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

[WSG] JavaScript courses in Sydney

2009-10-12 Thread David McKinnon
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

[WSG] 「 JAVASCRIPT 」 Abort loading image

2009-07-15 Thread ピエール・アンリ・ラヴィン
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

RE: [WSG] ? JAVASCRIPT ? Abort loading image

2009-07-15 Thread Axiotis, Vicky
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 the source

[WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying within HTML

2009-07-14 Thread Brett Patterson
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 Language Clarifying within HTML

2009-07-14 Thread David Dixon
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying within HTML

2009-07-14 Thread Brett Patterson
Thank you! -- Brett P. On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:48 AM, David Dixon da...@terrainferno.net 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,

Re: [WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying within HTML

2009-07-14 Thread Kevin Ireson
-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

2009-07-14 Thread Chabot, Elliot
...@mail.house.gov and your concern will be directed to the appropriate staff person. From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Ireson Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:09 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] JavaScript Language Clarifying

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

2009-06-30 Thread Mathew Robertson
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 that the

Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility

2009-03-03 Thread Matt Morgan-May
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

[WSG] Javascript Accessibility

2009-03-02 Thread David Dixon
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

RE: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility

2009-03-02 Thread michael.brockington
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 JavaScript Availability: http://rossboucher.com/2009/02/26

Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility

2009-03-02 Thread Mathew Robertson
David Dixon da...@terrainferno.net 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

Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility

2009-03-02 Thread David Dixon
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

Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility

2009-03-02 Thread David Dixon
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

RE: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility - ARIA

2009-03-02 Thread Foskett, Mike
10:03 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility David Dixon da...@terrainferno.net wrote: Interesting blog entry by the creators of the Cappuccino project (http://cappuccino.org) on the subject on Web Accessibility vs JavaScript Availability: http

Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility

2009-03-02 Thread Matt Morgan-May
On 3/2/09 2:02 AM, Mathew Robertson mat...@optusnet.com.au 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

Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility

2009-03-02 Thread David Dixon
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

Re: [WSG] Javascript Accessibility

2009-03-02 Thread Al Sparber
On 3/2/09 2:02 AM, Mathew Robertson mat...@optusnet.com.au 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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-20 Thread Simon Pascal Klein
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

2009-01-20 Thread Chris Taylor
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

RE: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-20 Thread Chris Taylor
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? Maybe

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-20 Thread Chris Knowles
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 your

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-20 Thread Chris Knowles
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

2009-01-20 Thread Chris Taylor
-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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-19 Thread Simon Pascal Klein
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

RE: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-19 Thread michael.brockington
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

2009-01-19 Thread james . ducker
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-19 Thread james . ducker
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-19 Thread Anthony Ziebell
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.

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-19 Thread james . ducker
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-19 Thread Chris Knowles
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-19 Thread Anthony Ziebell
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

[WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-18 Thread Anthony Ziebell
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 and Accessibility

2009-01-18 Thread nedlud
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,

Re: [WSG] JavaScript and Accessibility

2009-01-18 Thread Rimantas Liubertas
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

2009-01-18 Thread Anthony Ziebell
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:

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

2009-01-06 Thread Brett Patterson
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

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

2009-01-06 Thread David Dorward
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 label would have been

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

2009-01-06 Thread Tatham Oddie
Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2009 12:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [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

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

2009-01-06 Thread Brett Patterson
, 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 *Subject:* [WSG] JavaScript as External File vs. Internal Code and linking to images

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

2009-01-06 Thread Ben Buchanan
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 text

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please - versions

2008-10-29 Thread Keryx Web
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

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

2008-10-29 Thread Keryx Web
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. geekspeak

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

2008-10-29 Thread Keryx Web
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 clunky.

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please - versions

2008-10-29 Thread Brett Patterson
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 must

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please - let blocks

2008-10-29 Thread Keryx Web
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 - let blocks

2008-10-29 Thread Brett Patterson
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. Brett

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-28 Thread liorean
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-protocol we

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-28 Thread Brett Patterson
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

2008-10-28 Thread michael.brockington
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 execute JavaScript

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-28 Thread Brett Patterson
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: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please When you say support

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-28 Thread Hassan Schroeder
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

2008-10-28 Thread liorean
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 it

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-28 Thread Brett Patterson
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 full

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-28 Thread Breton Slivka
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

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [WSG] Javascript classical inheritence

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

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

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

2008-10-26 Thread Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-26 Thread Luke Hoggett
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-26 Thread Anthony Ziebell
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

2008-10-26 Thread Breton Slivka
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-26 Thread Anthony Ziebell
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?

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-26 Thread Breton Slivka
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-26 Thread Anthony Ziebell
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-26 Thread Breton Slivka
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-26 Thread Anthony Ziebell
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-26 Thread Breton Slivka
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

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-26 Thread Anthony
My sentiments exactly. Regards, Anthony. Sent from my iPhone! On 27/10/2008, at 3:46 PM, Breton Slivka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have in fact read your references, not only just now, but again and again I have read the wikipedia articles on the subject many moons ago. Frankly I fail to see

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-25 Thread Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Christian Snodgrass wrote: I second that. They actually have a LOT more bad information than they do good information, and what little good information they have is often quite out of date (so, it was good information, but not anymore). And when they _do_ add new information, they get that

Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

2008-10-24 Thread Simon Josephson
Breton Thanks for your time in explaining the intricacies and intrigues of Object Oriented Programming. Very enlightening. Thanks greatly Simon artatwork.com.au On 24/10/2008, at 11:58 AM, Breton

  1   2   3   4   >