Re: [WSG] seeking JavaScript Bible comments
Den 2009-02-09 03:02, Joseph Taylor skrev: I wouldn't worry about document.write examples too much. You just need to keep in mind that the book is designed to teach the language from scratch, and quite possibly the reader hasn't scripted before. Starting from point zero, document.write is a good way to get started learning and making things happen fast. I'll guess that the Bible-series programming books aren't necessarily considering standardistas. An exceptionally late reply, since I've been incredibly busy the last month... The problem with using document.write or some other bad practice in an example is that the code tend to be used in real solutions. Students (and real developers) often search for the first solution that works. Simple examples of how to use e.g. a control structure can be illustrated using console.log() or the JavaScript shell, even window.alert() is preferable. I taught complete newbies JavaScript last semester. The very first thing I did was showing them the console in Firebug. (The computers at school do not have Opera or a webkit based browser installed, but I told the they have got similar tools.) Using Firebug for my examples was a huge timesaver when showing how the syntax or built in objects work, compared to using any technique that relies on document.write. There simply is no need for it any longer. Lars Gunther *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] seeking JavaScript Bible comments
Paul Novitski skrev: I would love to get your critical comments on Danny Goodman's JavaScript Bible http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470069163.html I'm updating the book to its 7th edition and am making some significant changes, including upgrading it to include separation of layers progressive enhancement. OK. You are addressing my biggest gripe. I'm sure you will get the word unobtrusive in there as well! JQuery has just demonstrated that even a library can be built using no browser sniffing at all. Capability testing a.k.a. feature detection and the new kid on the block, bug detection, really takes a lot of focus away from the compatibility tables. Do you have any other criticisms of the book, either minor or major, that I should consider in the rewrite? I would be grateful for your detailed remarks. I am developing the DOM Scripting courses for the Web Standards Projects Educational Fask Force. High on my personal wish list is a chapter on JavaScript from an academic, computer science, perspective. Also, the first examples of JavaScript tend to use document.write when illustrating the simplest parts of the language. Usage of document.write should be banned from day one. Encourage the readers to test simple stuff in a console (e.g. Firebug) or the JS-shell instead. (Appendix C) Namespacing (or the lack thereof) is another issue that should be addressed early on. As soon as example code becomes realistic, it should be enclosed in a self executing function or in some other way be hidden from the global scope. ECMAScript 3.1 is coming along soon(?). It warrants a discussion. ES 3.1 will have built in functionality for JSON. JSON is missing in the 6th edition *entirely*. Lars Gunther *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] seeking JavaScript Bible comments
Also, the first examples of JavaScript tend to use document.write when illustrating the simplest parts of the language. Usage of document.write should be banned from day one. Encourage the readers to test simple A decade ago (Netscape 4 era) I used document.write in some javascript widgets for people display some content from another site by using a script tag. They still work in current browsers but javascript has come a long way since then! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] seeking JavaScript Bible comments
I wouldn't worry about document.write examples too much. You just need to keep in mind that the book is designed to teach the language from scratch, and quite possibly the reader hasn't scripted before. Starting from point zero, document.write is a good way to get started learning and making things happen fast. I'll guess that the Bible-series programming books aren't necessarily considering standardistas. Joseph R. B. Taylor /Designer / Developer/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 Fax: (866) 301-8045 Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com MichaelMD wrote: Also, the first examples of JavaScript tend to use document.write when illustrating the simplest parts of the language. Usage of document.write should be banned from day one. Encourage the readers to test simple A decade ago (Netscape 4 era) I used document.write in some javascript widgets for people display some content from another site by using a script tag. They still work in current browsers but javascript has come a long way since then! *** 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 ***
