A new JavaScript tutorial(Beta)

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by binnyva@hotmail.com, Aug 31, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Hello Everyone,

    I have just compleated a JavaScript tutorial and publishing the
    draft(or the beta version, as I like to call it) for review. This is
    not open to public yet.

    The Tutorial is avaliable at...
    http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial/

    If any of you could spare the time, please have a look at my tutorial
    and let me know if you find any errors/omissions.

    Don't think much of the word 'Advanced' in the title - when I started
    the tutorial, I had high hopes for the tutorial. But after some months
    with very little free time in them, my standards came down - a lot.

    Thanks in advance,

    Binny V A
    http://binnyva.blogspot.com/
     
    , Aug 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > Hello Everyone,
    >
    > I have just compleated a JavaScript tutorial and publishing the
    > draft(or the beta version, as I like to call it) for review. This is
    > not open to public yet.
    >
    > The Tutorial is avaliable at...
    > http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial/
    >
    > If any of you could spare the time, please have a look at my tutorial
    > and let me know if you find any errors/omissions.
    >
    > Don't think much of the word 'Advanced' in the title - when I started
    > the tutorial, I had high hopes for the tutorial. But after some months
    > with very little free time in them, my standards came down - a lot.


    JavaScript != JScript: http://www.jhz-cs.com/guides/js/jscript.html

    Why waste time copying form values to variables when you could just use
    the form value directly?

    Seems to me that a wheel has just been re-invented. Googling for
    "javascript tutorial" (with the quotes) returns 130,000 hits. When I
    searched, WC Schools was first.

    --
    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Aug 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kevin Newman Guest

    Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    > Seems to me that a wheel has just been re-invented. Googling for
    > "javascript tutorial" (with the quotes) returns 130,000 hits. When I
    > searched, WC Schools was first.
    >


    Writing a short tutorial (or even an in depth one) could be considered a
    good exercise to expand one's understanding of a topic. I wouldn't say
    this is a complete waste of time.
     
    Kevin Newman, Aug 31, 2005
    #3
  4. Ivo Guest

    <> wrote
    >
    > I have just compleated a JavaScript tutorial and publishing the
    > draft(or the beta version, as I like to call it) for review.


    Oh God, not another one! You have to understand that this is my first
    reaction when a post begins with such a line. Why another Javascript
    tutorial? Aren't there enough of them around by now? From the most basic to
    expert, from crap via laughable to really thoughtful and original, all
    levels are represented already on a zillion sites. And they are mostly
    copies of eachother. Writing a tutorial, on any topic, is a good learning
    experience, but offering it to others for reading, requires a different kind
    of writing.

    OK, so much for a first reaction. Then, I notice three spelling and grammar
    errors in that same first line, and whatever is left of my positive attitude
    very quickly disappears. If the tutorial is equally untidily written,
    learning anything from it is going to be a real challenge. Consider :
    compleated -> completed
    publishing -> publish / am publishing
    draft(or -> draft (or

    I went to the URL you gave. When I click a link on that page, IE reports an
    error on line 33. I didn't investigate further.
    hth
    ivo
     
    Ivo, Sep 1, 2005
    #4
  5. JRS: In article <uLpRe.3922$>, dated Wed,
    31 Aug 2005 21:59:54, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Kevin Newman
    <> posted :
    >Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    >> Seems to me that a wheel has just been re-invented. Googling for
    >> "javascript tutorial" (with the quotes) returns 130,000 hits. When I
    >> searched, WC Schools was first.

    >
    >Writing a short tutorial (or even an in depth one) could be considered a
    >good exercise to expand one's understanding of a topic. I wouldn't say
    >this is a complete waste of time.



    Agreed : writing a tutorial must be self-educational. I once had a
    Professor who undertook to deliver a lecture course on the grounds that
    it was on a topic that he wanted to know more about - however, he was an
    acknowledged genius.

    The question is whether such a tutorial will be worth reading.

    The newsgroup FAQ does not explicitly list any Javascript tutorials.

    --
    © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
    <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
    <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
    <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
     
    Dr John Stockton, Sep 1, 2005
    #5
  6. Guest

    Hi,

    > Writing a short tutorial (or even an in depth one) could
    > be considered a good exercise to expand one's understanding
    > of a topic. I wouldn't say this is a complete waste of time.

    Yes, writing the tutorial increased my knowledge. But
    it is not by the contents of the tutorial - but by the
    research I put into making it.

    > Seems to me that a wheel has just been re-invented.
    > Googling for "javascript tutorial" (with the quotes)
    > returns 130,000 hits. When I searched, WC Schools was first.

    I admit that there is a lot of JavaScript tutorials out
    there - and this my addition to that endless list. I may
    be reinventing the wheel, but then again, reinventing the
    wheel is fun!

    > I went to the URL you gave. When I click a link on that page,
    > IE reports an error on line 33. I didn't investigate further.

    Sorry about the javascript errors in my site. There is nothing that I
    can do about it - all the errors are created and maintained by my web
    host - geocities.com.
     
    , Sep 2, 2005
    #6
  7. Robi Guest

    binny v a wrote in message news:...
    > Hello Everyone,
    >
    > I have just compleated a JavaScript tutorial and publishing the
    > draft(or the beta version, as I like to call it) for review. This is
    > not open to public yet.
    >
    > The Tutorial is avaliable at...
    > http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial/
    >
    > If any of you could spare the time, please have a look at my tutorial
    > and let me know if you find any errors/omissions.


    Every tutorial has its pros and its cons. The cons is that there are
    zillions of tutorials floating around, the pros are that with every
    tutorial you might learn something new. Besides, writing or developing
    such a tutorial allows (and in the end requires) you to understand the
    presented matter.

    I am sorry, I didn't look for errors or omissions, but just browsed
    through it and it has several neat thingamajiggys in it ;-)
    one of them is the possibility (with the evil "eval()") to execute
    your own javascript or test results.

    now on this I have the following question, and I hope someone can
    answer this:
    I use Firefox (1.0.6) and on the page
    http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial/moving.html
    at the end, you can "move" two <div>s containing jokes around.
    when I initially load the page and write:
    alert(document.getElementById("joke_2").style.left)
    I get a blank alert box, but as soon as I write:

    document.getElementById("joke_2").style.left = 120;
    document.getElementById("joke_2").style.width = 290;
    alert(document.getElementById("joke_2").style.left)

    the alert box returns 120px.
    Why is
    document.getElementById("joke_2").style.left
    blank at the beginning? shouldn't the style be computed and
    filled in by the agent?
     
    Robi, Sep 2, 2005
    #7
  8. Guest

    Hi,

    > Writing a short tutorial (or even an in depth one) could
    > be considered a good exercise to expand one's understanding
    > of a topic. I wouldn't say this is a complete waste of time.

    Yes, writing the tutorial increased my knowledge. But
    it is not by the contents of the tutorial - but by the
    research I put into making it.

    > Seems to me that a wheel has just been re-invented.
    > Googling for "javascript tutorial" (with the quotes)
    > returns 130,000 hits. When I searched, WC Schools was first.

    I admit that there is a lot of JavaScript tutorials out
    there - and this my addition to that endless list. I may
    be reinventing the wheel, but then again, reinventing the
    wheel is fun!

    > I went to the URL you gave. When I click a link on that page,
    > IE reports an error on line 33. I didn't investigate further.

    Sorry about the javascript errors in my site. There is nothing that I
    can do about it - all the errors are created and maintained by my web
    host - geocities.com.
     
    , Sep 2, 2005
    #8
  9. Robi wrote:
    > binny v a wrote:
    >> I have just compleated a JavaScript tutorial and publishing the
    >> draft(or the beta version, as I like to call it) for review.
    >> This is not open to public yet.
    >>
    >> The Tutorial is avaliable at...
    >> http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial/
    >>
    >> If any of you could spare the time, please have a look at my
    >> tutorial and let me know if you find any errors/omissions.


    Omissions are inevitably too numerous to list. With a subject so vast
    there is little chance of covering everything in 14 short pages.
    However, one serious omission arises from providing example mark-up in
    XHTML style while promoting browser-scripting strategies that will fail
    if they are exposed to an XHTML DOM. That contradiction really deserves
    some words of explanation.

    It is also a significant omission not to explain the extent to which the
    example code is IE only (or at least effective only in IE and it's close
    imitators) and/or relies on browsers operating in 'quirks' mode.

    While the majority of the approaches and techniques presented are
    sub-optimal (in the code they use and in cross-browser scripting terms)
    actual errors mostly relate to the discussion and examples of (X)HTML
    mark-up. This is well illustrated by this section opening paragraphs:-

    <quote
    cire="http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial
    /">
    JavaScript or JScript is a language that can be seen as the next step
    from HTML. HTML is concerned with the simple display and presentation of
    text and images. JavaScript offers more interactivity for the user and
    above all more choice and understanding of the world wide web.
    </quote>

    -, the many examples of invalid mark-up, and particularly this section:-

    <quote
    cite="http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial
    /div_span.html">
    Span is a tag very similar to DIV in its properties. The difference
    between the two is the while the DIV is a block-level element, SPAN is
    an inline element. Both DIV and SPAN are grouping elements. The DIV and
    SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id and class attributes, offer a
    generic mechanism for adding structure to documents.

    So when do you use SPAN and when do you use DIV? Use DIV if you want do
    enclose lengthy contents or if the enclosed text will have HTML tags in
    them. Use span for enclosing very small contents.

    ....

    <style type="text/css">
    div.thequote {
    border:1px dashed black;
    padding-left:50px;
    padding-right:50px;
    }
    span.quoter {
    padding-left:40px;
    font-style:italic;
    }
    </style>
    <div class="thequote">I accidentally shot my father-in-law
    while deer hunting. It was an <u>honest</u> mistake.
    I came out of the tent in the morning and thought <b>I saw
    a deer in an orange vest making coffee</b>.<br />
    <span class="quoter">Steven Wright</span></div>

    If you are serious about web development, you should know these two tags
    very well - they have awesome powers. These tags in alliance with CSS
    are currently posing a great threat to the other tags. If these two tags
    and CSS had their way, many old and obsolete tags would die - the first
    to go will be the font tag. Next in line will be other tags like
    b(bold) - will be replaced by <strong>, i(italics) - to be replaced by
    <em>, etc. I have even heard reports that div is going to replace the
    old(and faithful) table tag in layout! These tags with some others are
    promising to bring about the HTML utopia - the separation of design and
    content.
    </quote>

    Which demonstrates an apparent absence of technical understanding of
    HTML mark-up.

    > Every tutorial has its pros and its cons. The cons is that
    > there are zillions of tutorials floating around,


    There is nothing wrong with having zillions of tutorials around.

    > the pros are that with every
    > tutorial you might learn something new.


    The expression that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing can be
    very applicable to javascript tutorials fond on the Internet.

    > Besides, writing or developing such a tutorial allows
    >(and in the end requires) you to understand the
    > presented matter.


    Unfortunately that just is not true. It is true of writing a good
    tutorial, by which I mean a tutorial that is complete, technically (and
    otherwise) accurate, useful and capable of being understood by its
    readers. Writing a bad tutorial requires no more than an ability to
    churn out words (and certainly no understanding of the subject).

    The problem with having zillions of tutorials available on the Internet
    is that they range in quality form the very good to the catastrophically
    bad, and that the vast majority (numerically) are at the bottom end of
    that spectrum.

    There is nothing to stop anybody writing a javascript "tutorial" and
    publishing it on the Internet. A significant factor in their doing so is
    their confidence in their own abilities and knowledge of the subject.
    And confidence can be derived from superficial achievement, and
    bolstered by isolation and an under-awareness of the full set of issues
    that apply to Internet browser scripting.

    A newcomer to the language, having learnt to (more of less) use the
    language constructs will frequently find themselves massively frustrated
    by their first exposures to having to get scripts to operate in more
    than one browser (and people still talk of "both browsers", when there
    are at lest 5 distinct flavours of dynamic visual browser in current
    use, let alone all the other scriptable but less dynamic, or less
    visual, browsers). Having experienced the initial extreme of frustration
    the achievement of getting even one non-trivial script (say, a drop down
    menu or similar) to satisfy some demonstrable criteria of "working" in
    two or three test browsers can be a massive boost to the self-confidence
    of its author.

    I know that that was how it worked for me, and find it difficult to
    express my gratitude towards the regulars of this group for totally
    destroying my confidence in my own ability to script web browsers in
    very short order after I started to post here. Without that I would not
    now be in a position to appreciate how little I really understood at the
    time, and how misplaced that initial confidence was.

    Writing an explanation of a subject (that may take the form of a
    tutorial, or be regarded as such) actually is a very good way of testing
    your own understanding of a subject. If you can explain something to
    someone else in a way that they understand then the chances are very
    good that you understand what you were explaining yourself.

    However, it is also possible to do a good job of explaining your
    misconceptions to someone else such that they will share your
    misconceptions, and unfortunately that is an issue with many web
    tutorials. One way of avoiding that is to get critical feed-back about
    your understanding and explanations from suitably qualified individuals.

    In this respect participating in technical newsgroups is extremely
    valuable as it presents an opportunity to try to provide technical
    explanations on specific aspects of a subject under the scrutiny of at
    least some individuals with a potentially better understanding, and so
    misconceptions (and unconsidered issues) are likely to be raised in
    response. And you often get to find out how well the individual
    receiving the explanation understood it from how they respond.

    It is probably the experience of critical feed-back that makes for a
    good tutorial, but is would be best if that experience was gained prior
    to writing the tutorial. Asking for a review of a completed tutorial is
    probably better than nothing (assuming a willingness to re-write it in
    response) but it is not very practical for anyone to make a full
    response to 14 wide-ranging pages littered with incomplete and dubious
    advice, and so the types of response elicited are likely to be easily
    dismissed (to the detriment of the result).

    Unfortunately a very low average quality also blights books on
    javascript. I recall reading an example chapter from a javascript book
    that featured the word "advanced" in its title, to find it filled with
    bad advice, (IE) browser specific code and examples that would be better
    described as needlessly convoluted than advanced.

    "Advanced" is of course a relative term, and depends on where you are
    observing from. The 'tutorial' mentioned above does not deserve the
    label as its contents and subjects are very run of the mill browser
    scripting. I am reminded of the interview for my current job, which was
    advertised a requiring "advanced DHTML", and for which the interviewers
    set a 'technical' test. I found that test very disappointing as it
    hardly probed the knowledge of the candidates at all, requiring no more
    than a broad familiarity with the more commonly used features of a
    browser's object model, some familiarity with CSS and the ability to
    recognise some really glaring syntax errors.

    I stated after the test that I thought anyone who did not get 100%
    should not be employed to script web browsers at all, and later
    discovered that one of the reasons that I was offered the job was that
    none of the other candidates had passed that same test. Which means that
    every other applicant had believed themselves capable of writing
    "advanced DHTML"[1] while actually not being qualified to script
    browsers at all (or they were planning of trying to wing it).

    [1] An alternative explanation would be that they didn't take the job
    adverts' wording seriously, which is actually understandable as most
    browser-scripting related job adverts betray apparent incomprehension on
    the part of the prospective employer as to what they actually want
    (proposing as they do combinations such as graphic design and DHTML,
    advanced javascript and Dreamweaver, and so on).

    > I am sorry, I didn't look for errors or omissions, but just
    > browsed through it and it has several neat thingamajiggys
    > in it ;-) one of them is the possibility (with the evil
    > "eval()") to execute your own javascript or test results.


    One of the rare justified employments for the eval function is
    demonstrating the execution of javascript source code. Which doesn't
    alter the assertion that eval is almost never of use in javascript
    authoring, as pages with javascript as their subject, using eval for
    demonstration purposes are a very tiny proportion of the applications
    of javascript.

    > now on this I have the following question, and I hope
    > someone can answer this:
    > I use Firefox (1.0.6) and on the page


    >http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/
    >advanced_tutorial/moving.html


    > at the end, you can "move" two <div>s containing jokes around.
    > when I initially load the page and write:
    > alert(document.getElementById("joke_2").style.left)
    > I get a blank alert box, but as soon as I write:
    >
    > document.getElementById("joke_2").style.left = 120;
    > document.getElementById("joke_2").style.width = 290;
    > alert(document.getElementById("joke_2").style.left)
    >
    > the alert box returns 120px.


    That is an interesting observation that I will return to later.

    > Why is
    > document.getElementById("joke_2").style.left
    > blank at the beginning?


    This is a common question and arises from an under appreciation of the
    role of an element's - style - object, and the application of styles
    through CSS. On a previous page in the 'tutorial' you find:-

    <quote
    cite="http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial
    /styles.html">
    .... . The style can be anything that can be used as a CSS style. The
    following format is to be used for all style changes.

    document.getElementById('ID_OF_THE_ELEMENT').style.TYPE = 'NEW_VALUE';

    The equivalent CSS statement will be

    #ID_OF_THE_ELEMENT {
    TYPE : NEW_VALUE;
    }

    An example

    document.getElementById('name').style.color = 'blue';

    And the CSS will be

    #name {
    color : blue;
    }
    </quote>

    - in which the property of the - style - object is equated with the type
    of style declaration that you would find in a STYLE element or an
    external style sheet.

    CSS may be declared/defined in many ways in an HTML document. It may be
    found in external style sheets (imported as files), it may be found on
    the page in STYLE elements, e.g.:-

    <style type="text/css">
    ..someClass {
    position:relative;
    }
    </style>

    - or it may be specified as an attribute of an element, e.g.:-

    <div style="position:relative;"> ... </div>

    How CSS rules are applied to HTML elements is determined by a number of
    factors. There is the cascade (the C in CSS), in which the last
    (applicable (possibly by media type)) rule encountered overrides
    equivalent properties from rules previously encountered. And there is
    specificity, where the most specific rule applies to any given element.
    The CSS specification is the best guide to how these mechanisms work.
    However, the style attribute of an element is the most specific way of
    assigning CSS to an element and so the contents of a style attribute
    override all other CSS rules (well almost, as rules that are declared as
    !Important can still come into play (useful in print style sheets where
    elements dynamically positioned/hidden through their style attributes
    may need more printer-friendly styling)).

    In the DOM, an Element object's - style - property is the representation
    of the element's style _attribute_ in the HTML, only. It does not
    represent the CSS applied to an element through style sheets or
    declarations in STYLE elements on the page, only the contents of the
    style attribute.

    Thus if you read from a property of an Element's - style - object you
    will only initially find values where those values are assigned in the
    style attribute in the HTML.

    If you assign values to the (recognised) properties of an Element's
    style object you are effectively re-defining its style attribute (this
    is in terms of the live DOM and may not be reflected in values read
    using getAttribute('style') on the element). Such assignments are an
    effective mechanism for setting CSS values because it is in the nature
    of the style attribute to override all other CSS assignments in other
    locations.

    > shouldn't the style be computed and
    > filled in by the agent?


    The style is computed, and computed styles are available on W3C DOM
    styles implementing browser through the getComputedStyle method of the
    defaultView interface, and on IE 5+ through the currentStyle object that
    is also a property of Elements (though currentStyle properties are not
    as accurately representative as those derived from the getComputedStyle
    method, where available).

    But because the style property of elements is a representation of the
    style attribute in the HTML it should not initially be assigned values
    that do not appear in the attribute in the HTML. That is; it is not a
    general representation of an element's applied styling, but just the
    representation of the element's style attribute.

    Returning to your observation that the alert reported "120px" when you
    had assigned the numeric value 120; the Rules of CSS require that
    non-zero length values explicitly state the units in which they are
    defined (px, pt, em, cm, and so on). Internet Explorer has always
    error-corrected values provided without the CSS units, assuming that
    they are px values and assigning the value as a string with 'px' on the
    end. Other browsers have sometimes followed IE in this respect, others
    follow IE in "quirks" mode and insist upon correct CSS in "strict" mode
    (and there are probably browsers that are always strict in their
    interpretation of CSS, though I cannot think of any right now).

    The practical upshot of this is that if you omit the CSS units from an
    assignment you are writing code that will not function under some
    circumstances. If, on the other hand, you habitually include the CSS
    units you will be writing code that will work exactly the same on all
    of the browsers (and in all of the circumstances) where assigning just
    the number would work, and also work on all the browsers (and in all
    of the circumstances) where a correct CSS value would be required.
    E.G.:-

    document.getElementById("id").style.top = 120+'px';

    Generally, where one approach is available that satisfies all of the
    browsers that are capable of a particular action (setting properties on
    an element's style object in this case) it is best to learn to always
    use that approach habitually, rather than having to think about whether
    you can get away with omitting the CSS units (as might be practical on
    an IE only Intranet).

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Sep 4, 2005
    #9
  10. JRS: In article <dffnt7$k9k$1$>, dated Sun, 4
    Sep 2005 22:11:02, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Richard Cornford
    <> posted :
    >
    >One of the rare justified employments for the eval function is
    >demonstrating the execution of javascript source code.


    I quibble : there is no need to use eval for the stated purpose, but it
    is necessary for the execution of reader-provided code. The latter is a
    facility which needs to be available to a tutorial-user, is generally
    available by constructing and viewing a file, and can be made
    conveniently available with a button that executes eval of a textarea.

    For demonstration of function Fn(), one can start with the page

    <script>
    function Fn() { alert(123) }
    </script>

    <input type=button onClick="alert(Fn.toString())">

    and then add what is needed for standards-compliance, decoration, etc.
    Fn.toString() is the ultimate essence of what my double-bordered boxes
    use.

    AFAICS, all browsers are supposed to give a reasonable result from
    function.toString() though details vary.



    Most of my uses of eval are like T=eval(t0.value) or
    T=+eval(t0.value) where t0 is an <input type=text name=t0 ...> and the
    user is thereby enabled to give a numeric expression as input (this
    helps the metrically-challenged, who can put 12*1.609 to specify with
    miles a value which should be kilometres) ... but I'll probably change
    that to T = UInp(t0) .

    --
    © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
    <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
    <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
    <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
     
    Dr John Stockton, Sep 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Guest

    > It is also a significant omission not to explain the extent to
    > which the example code is IE only (or at least effective only
    > in IE and it's close imitators) and/or relies on browsers operating
    > in 'quirks' mode.


    Thanks for pointing this out - I am correcting the problems. I found
    this
    problem in the following pages.
    http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial/moving.html
    http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/code/javascript/advanced_tutorial/picture.html

    > ... actual errors mostly relate to the discussion and examples of
    > (X)HTML mark-up. This is well illustrated by this section opening
    > paragraphs:-
    > JavaScript or JScript is a language that can be seen as the next

    step
    > from HTML. HTML is concerned with the simple display and

    presentation of
    > text and images. JavaScript offers more interactivity for the user

    and
    > above all more choice and understanding of the world wide web.


    Hmm. How should I change the text to make the description better?

    > -, the many examples of invalid mark-up, and particularly this

    section:-
    >
    > If you are serious about web development, you should know these
    > two tags very well - they have awesome powers. These tags in
    > alliance with CSS are currently posing a great threat to the other
    > tags. If these two tags and CSS had their way, many old and
    > obsolete tags would die - the first to go will be the font tag.
    > Next in line will be other tags like b(bold) - will be replaced
    > by <strong>, i(italics) - to be replaced by <em>, etc. I have even
    > heard reports that div is going to replace the old(and faithful)
    > table tag in layout! These tags with some others are promising and
    > to bring about the HTML utopia - the separation of design
    > content.
    >
    > Which demonstrates an apparent absence of technical understanding
    > of HTML mark-up.


    Again, how do I make the description better? Or should I just remove
    the offending para - this is just a side note - so I can safely delete
    it.

    Just give me some suggestions on how to make the above descriptions
    better.
    I am not correcting this myself - if my first attempt did not make the
    mark, I don't expect much of the second attempt.

    Thanks for all your feedback.

    Binny V A
     
    , Sep 6, 2005
    #11
  12. wrote:
    <snip>
    >> ... actual errors mostly relate to the discussion and examples of
    >> (X)HTML mark-up. This is well illustrated by this section opening
    >> paragraphs:-
    >> JavaScript or JScript is a language that can be seen as the next

    > step
    >> from HTML. HTML is concerned with the simple display and

    > presentation of
    >> text and images. JavaScript offers more interactivity for the user

    > and
    >> above all more choice and understanding of the world wide web.


    You have really garbled that quote (and failed to attribute it
    correctly). You might want to read the group's FAQ as it references
    information on effectively formatting newsgroup posts.

    > Hmm. How should I change the text to make the description better?


    Replace and/or re-order the words to produce a result that is more
    meaningful and accurate.

    >> -, the many examples of invalid mark-up, and particularly this

    > section:-
    >>
    >> If you are serious about web development, you should know these
    >> two tags very well - they have awesome powers. These tags in
    >> alliance with CSS are currently posing a great threat to the other
    >> tags. If these two tags and CSS had their way, many old and
    >> obsolete tags would die - the first to go will be the font tag.
    >> Next in line will be other tags like b(bold) - will be replaced
    >> by <strong>, i(italics) - to be replaced by <em>, etc. I have even
    >> heard reports that div is going to replace the old(and faithful)
    >> table tag in layout! These tags with some others are promising and
    >> to bring about the HTML utopia - the separation of design
    >> content.
    >>
    >> Which demonstrates an apparent absence of technical understanding
    >> of HTML mark-up.

    >
    > Again, how do I make the description better?


    The statements that you actually made stem form fundamental
    misconceptions as to the nature of HTML. Including an apparent
    unawareness of the technical aspects of the language, so when you
    wrote:-

    | So when do you use SPAN and when do you use DIV? Use DIV if you
    | want do enclose lengthy contents or if the enclosed text will
    | have HTML tags in them. Use span for enclosing very small contents.

    - you disregard HTML's rules about the permissible contents of its
    various elements. And so deprive your readers of the opportunity to
    appreciate the relative roles of inline elements and block elements.

    > Or should I just remove the offending para - this
    > is just a side note - so I can safely delete it.


    That paragraph may be the nadir of the article, but removing it would
    not solve my issue with it. The preceding mark-up:-

    | <div class="thequote">I accidentally shot my father-in-law
    | while deer hunting. It was an <u>honest</u> mistake.
    | I came out of the tent in the morning and thought <b>I saw
    | a deer in an orange vest making coffee</b>.<br />
    | <span class="quoter">Steven Wright</span></div>

    - betrays strange reasoning. You seem to want to apply CSS styling to a
    block level element containing a quote. HTML has a BLOCKQUOTE element
    which is block level and to which any CSS styling can be applied. It is
    a semantic element, its name actually says something about the contents
    of the element, and what is says seems to correspond precisely with the
    role you have assigned to the DIV you are proposing in its place.

    And instead of applying CSS as:-

    | div.thequote {
    | border:1px dashed black;
    | padding-left:50px;
    | padding-right:50px;
    | }

    - you could apply it as:-

    BLOCKQUOTE {
    border:1px dashed black;
    padding-left:50px;
    padding-right:50px;
    }

    - and have that CSS apply to all block level quotes, or use that as a
    default block quote styling and use classes to categorise any special
    types of block level quotes, and apply styling to those. E.G:-

    BLOCKQUOTE.hyperbole {
    font-weight:bold;
    font-size:120%;
    }

    DIV and SPAN are semantically neutral elements, they are useful
    (especially in conjunction with class attributes used for
    classification) in extending HTMLs limited set of semantic elements. But
    where other elements are available to describe the contents they should
    not be used in preference. In this respect your use of SPAN to
    categorise the individual being quoted is much more appropriate (even if
    the class chosen is flawed).

    Their role in purely structural grouping, especially when used to apply
    layout, is a slightly different matter. For example, The name "Steven
    Wright" is not part of the quote so maybe it should not be inside a
    BLOCKQUOTE element, but you would want it grouped with the BLOCKQUOTE,
    and laid out in association with it, which might result in:-

    <div class="attributedQuote">
    <blockquote>
    <p>I accidentally shot my father-in-law while deer hunting.
    It was an <em>honest</em> mistake. I came out of the tent in
    the morning and thought <strong>I saw a deer in an orange
    vest making coffee</strong>.</p>
    </blockquote>
    <div class="quoteAttribution">Steven Wright</div>
    </div>

    > Just give me some suggestions on how to make the
    > above descriptions better.


    Learn some HTML, and how to apply CSS to it.

    > I am not correcting this myself - if my first attempt
    > did not make the mark, I don't expect much of the second attempt.

    <snip>

    I always expect more of my second (and subsequent) attempts to explain
    anything. I expect to have learnt more in the interim, taken account of
    critical feedback and observed the effectiveness of the explanation on
    whoever it is directed towards.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Sep 7, 2005
    #12
  13. Mick White Guest

    Dr Clue wrote:
    >
    >
    > It really seems that correcting folks for some fop ah in the fashion I
    > see here completely offiscates the topic at hand.
    >
    > This seems to have been a problem since even the old days.
    >
    > I guess if I'm ever looking for discussions on ng minutia
    > I have a list of people to see.
    >
    > Does the term "off-topic" have any meaning?
    >
    > I'd tell folks of this ilk to knock it off , but since they have nothing
    > constructive to say they simply speak with their hind sides facing the
    > screen.


    Did you actually follow the link to the js tutorial?

    Faux pas
    Obfuscates

    Mick
     
    Mick White, Sep 7, 2005
    #13
  14. Dr Clue wrote:
    > Richard Cornford wrote:
    >> You have really garbled that quote (and failed to attribute it
    >> correctly). You might want to read the group's FAQ as it
    >> references information on effectively formatting newsgroup posts.

    >
    > It really seems that correcting folks for some fop ah in the
    > fashion I see here completely offiscates the topic at hand.
    >
    > This seems to have been a problem since even the old days.
    >
    > I guess if I'm ever looking for discussions on ng minutia
    > I have a list of people to see.
    >
    > Does the term "off-topic" have any meaning?

    <snip>

    Do you see the irony in quoting two sentences from a 6KB post, making
    them the entire subject of a follow-up, and then questioning
    on-topic-ness of that subject?

    Advice given on the subject of posting styles is for the benefit of the
    recipient. Prolonged observation of the behaviour of most of the regular
    contributors to this group would revel a strong tendency to disregard
    individuals who do not follow the posting conventions or do not make a
    reasonable effort into rendering their posts easy to read and
    understand. While individuals who do make the effort to communicate with
    the group effectively frequently receive a great deal of help, advice,
    etc.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Sep 7, 2005
    #14
  15. Robi Guest

    binnyva wrote in message news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > > Writing a short tutorial (or even an in depth one) could
    > > be considered a good exercise to expand one's understanding
    > > of a topic. I wouldn't say this is a complete waste of time.

    > Yes, writing the tutorial increased my knowledge. But
    > it is not by the contents of the tutorial - but by the
    > research I put into making it.


    On the "Moving Stuff around" page, I would add the possibility
    of interchanging the <DIV>s in the other parental <TD>s

    i.e.:
    document.getElementById("joke_1").parentNode.nextSibling.appendChild(document.getElementById("joke_1"));
    document.getElementById("joke_2").parentNode.previousSibling.appendChild(document.getElementById("joke_2"));

    document.getElementById("joke_1").parentNode.insertBefore(document.getElementById("joke_1"),document.getElementById("joke_1").parent
    Node.firstChild);
    document.getElementById("joke_2").parentNode.insertBefore(document.getElementById("joke_2"),document.getElementById("joke_2").parent
    Node.firstChild);

    The first group switches the <DIV>s

    <table>
    <tr>
    <td><div id="joke_1">...</div></td>
    <td><div id="joke_2">...</div></td>
    </tr>
    </table>
    into
    <table>
    <tr>
    <td><div id="joke_2">...</div></td>
    <td><div id="joke_1">...</div></td>
    </tr>
    </table>

    the second group just moves the <div> to the first position of each <td>

    switching effectively the jokes without positioning them ;-)

    I'm sure the movement could be made easier or just with two lines,
    but I didn't take the time to do that.

    another possibility to move them, is to assign
    document.getElementById("joke_1").offsetLeft to a variable and
    document.getElementById("joke_2").offsetLeft to another and then
    assign the variables +"px" to
    document.getElementById("joke_2").style.left and
    document.getElementById("joke_1").style.left

    that's what I was missing in my previous post in this thread.
    But that only positions the DIVs; although in "wrong" containers.
    The appendChild/insertBefore version places them into the "correct"
    containers, right in the container's position.

    Richard, thanks for the style lecture, that got me on the track ;-)

    Robi
     
    Robi, Sep 7, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Oliver

    install Beta 2 after Beta 1?

    Mark Oliver, Jan 25, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    395
    Scott Allen
    Jan 25, 2005
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,167
    Bruce Barker
    May 3, 2005
  3. Eugene Toporov
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    751
    Eugene Toporov
    Jul 15, 2004
  4. David Dorward
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    571
    David Dorward
    Jul 12, 2005
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    465
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Mar 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page