FAQ 9.3 Updated

[Randy Webb]

FAQ Version 9.3 Dated 2006-12-13 is now at <URL:
http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html> instead of in the newfaq folder.
The newfaq folder version will stay for about a week and then the entire
folder will cease to exist. For some reason, when I use the URL
http://jibbering.com/faq/ I get the old version but specifying the
filename gives me the new version. Not sure if that is something
specific to me or something I screwed up.

Jim?

The next project is to start on 10.0 which will be a reformatted
document with a lot of the link sections made into lists. Re-organizing
section 4 so that related subjects are grouped together (such as 4.34
and 4.44 being grouped together).

The code being reviewed to use better variable names to gear it towards
the newbe that the FAQ is intended for and moving any long winded code
sections to a Notes page to minimize the size of the FAQ index file
itself. Right now, the FAQ document is approaching 70K (depending on how
you read the file size) and to me that is getting too large for a single
FAQ document.

It will also use word hashes rather than numbered hashes along with a
script block that will redirect old hash numbers to the new word hashes
so that old links in the archives will continue "working".

One thought I have in mind is to make a Notes page for each section of 4
so that it can be expanded on without making the FAQ itself grow
larger. The file name for each section would be the same as the hash
name for that section.

Example: Section 4.44 could have a hash of "#ajax" and the Notes page
would be named ajax.html, Section 4.12 could be rehashed to "#parseInt"
and the associated Notes page would be named parseInt.html and so on.

Thoughts, suggestions, or ideas?

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>,

FAQ Version 9.3 Dated 2006-12-13 is now at <URL:
http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html> instead of in the newfaq folder.
The newfaq folder version will stay for about a week and then the
entire folder will cease to exist. For some reason, when I use the URL
http://jibbering.com/faq/ I get the old version but specifying the
filename gives me the new version. Not sure if that is something
specific to me or something I screwed up.

ISTM better to give the full URL, with index.html, anyway.

The code being reviewed to use better variable names to gear it towards
the newbe

^^^^^
That's not really an English word (and it's not in my larger Webster
either) - but the accepted spelling in News is "newbie".

It will also use word hashes rather than numbered hashes along with a
script block that will redirect old hash numbers to the new word hashes
so that old links in the archives will continue "working".

ISTM unsound, given that most Javascript authors will have access to
multiple machines some of which may not implement Javascript, to make
correct FAQ operation rely on Javascript being enabled. You only need
to mark the beginning of each sub-section with anchors of both types :

One thought I have in mind is to make a Notes page for each section of
4 so that it can be expanded on without making the FAQ itself grow
larger. The file name for each section would be the same as the hash
name for that section.

Example: Section 4.44 could have a hash of "#ajax" and the Notes page
would be named ajax.html, Section 4.12 could be rehashed to "#parseInt"
and the associated Notes page would be named parseInt.html and so on.

Thoughts, suggestions, or ideas?

Notes pages should identify author/maintainer and date of last change.

 

[Randy Webb]

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 12/16/2006 6:45 PM:

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>,


ISTM better to give the full URL, with index.html, anyway.

Then why do none of the signatures I looked at of yours from recent
posts not specify the filename? They all refer to http://jibbering.com/faq/
In fact, a search of the archives for your name and
http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html turns up two threads, this one and
one other where you quoted someone referring to that URL, not you
posting it.

^^^^^
That's not really an English word (and it's not in my larger Webster
either) - but the accepted spelling in News is "newbie".

newbie, newbe, newbee, noobie, its all the same.

ISTM unsound, given that most Javascript authors will have access to
multiple machines some of which may not implement Javascript, to make
correct FAQ operation rely on Javascript being enabled. You only need
to mark the beginning of each sub-section with anchors of both types :
e.g. <a name="WRITW">Why Re-Invent the Wheel</a><a name="FAQ9_99"</a>.

That was a thought I had and probably the way it will be done.

Notes pages should identify author/maintainer and date of last change.

Date of last change, sure. The rest, no. The Notes pages belong to the
FAQ, not the author. Same as was discussed the last time this came up.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>,

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 12/16/2006 6:45 PM:

Then why do none of the signatures I looked at of yours from recent
posts not specify the filename? They all refer to
http://jibbering.com/faq/

Well, I didn't actually know the filename, since I use for reference a
copy following my own naming preference. And, as you should have
noticed, there's not much room on the line; it used to identify the
maintainer.

newbie, newbe, newbee, noobie, its all the same.

Not for those who remember that the post referred to new users but do
not recall the vagaries of your spelling, and so fail to find it be
search.

Date of last change, sure. The rest, no. The Notes pages belong to the
FAQ, not the author. Same as was discussed the last time this came up.

Nothing wrong with changing one's mind when one was previously in error.
In particular, it's convenient for every page to have the E-address for
corrections.

 

[Randy Webb]

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 12/17/2006 3:59 PM:

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>,


Well, I didn't actually know the filename, since I use for reference a
copy following my own naming preference.

It is trivial to determine the filename. A simple look at the FTP
listing and about 30 seconds of testing will tell you for sure.

And, as you should have noticed, there's not much room on the line; it
used to identify the maintainer.

Yes, I see you changed it.

Not for those who remember that the post referred to new users but do
not recall the vagaries of your spelling, and so fail to find it be
search.

Then you do a better search.

Nothing wrong with changing one's mind when one was previously in error.

Nice to see you are considering changing your mind then. I have not
changed mine and don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

In particular, it's convenient for every page to have the E-address for
corrections.

The E-address is in the FAQ itself.

Code in the FAQ and the Notes pages belong to the FAQ, the only people
that can be reasonably expected to be able to correct incorrect/bad code
would be the people that have access to the server to change it. At the
moment, to the best of my knowledge, that is Jim Ley, Randy Webb, and
Richard Cornford. Directing an email at, say, Laurent Bugnion to change
code in the FAQ wouldn't do a whole lot of good.

So no, I don't see myself changing my mind about that. There is no good
reason to indicate who wrote code in the FAQ - or the Notes - so I don't
see a reason to waste my time trying to document it.