D
Dr J R Stockton
In comp.lang.javascript message
Most of us have better things to do than arguing with VK; we only do so
for a little light relief. You too have had something better to do; but
you have not done it.
There is strong evidence that he does not benefit from being argued
with; IMHO, he might benefit from being ignored.
When he gives an enquirer a wrong answer, it would be far better just to
post, as a reply to the enquirer, the correct answer, going only so far
as to include "VK is wrong".
Don't knock Bart. He has actually done something useful over the past
year, and you have not. If it's been a matter of discussing it with
you, I suspect his unwillingness to be because of knowing that it would
be a waste of time and get nowhere,
When I maintained a UK newsgroup FAQ, this is how it was done.
I edited the master, in real time, on my PC. That means that when I saw
anything in the printed press, or on the Web, or in News or Mail, I
would edit the master "immediately" - just as I do with the master of my
Web site. Two or three times a day, when I dialled up, my first act
would be to transfer all changed pages (site & FAQ) to Demon's server,
so that they could then be read world-wide. And at around 04:00 each
Sunday morning, a CRON job (run by someone elsewhere; not Jim, but I
imagine Jim could easily have done it) read the FAQ from the Web,
replaced the Web headers with News headers, and posted it to News.
If any reader thought a change necessary and indicated it in News or
Mail, then, after any necessary discussion, I'd implement it as above.
That news-posting has ceased; that newsgroup is no longer needed; but
the FAQ is still on my site (I hope; perhaps I should look).
Now I don't at all say that it need be done that way; but it could be
done that way, and there can be no excuse for it being done in a wildly
less effective, or totally ineffective, fashion.
Here's a thought for a newsgroup FAQ : if any newsgroup regular whose
true identity is known in the Group posts a complete new or revised FAQ
portion, and if after at least some response in the group the maintainer
considers it to be a definite improvement, then the maintainer should
put that portion into the published FAQ (in a simple PRE box of a new
colour in the Web version) as is, *with* the true name of its final
author(s).
That should encourage contributions, but relieve the maintainer if
feeling that it must be as he would have written it.
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
<snip>
Will they? In the thread with the subject "objects with string indices"
these "others" have had two days to point out that when VK states "
15.10.2.11 DecimalEscape is the only place vaguely mentioning \0 and NUL
... " (in reference to ECMA 262, 3rd ed.) he is a fool to be looking in
the section of the specification that relates to regular expression
literal syntax for information on string literal syntax, or that the
other reference in the spec (making neither the "only place vaguely
mentioning \0"), and the applicable reference in the context of the
thread, is in section 7.8.3.
Most of us have better things to do than arguing with VK; we only do so
for a little light relief. You too have had something better to do; but
you have not done it.
VK would benefit considerably from more people pointing out his errors
and nonsense because as it is he dismisses the criticism he has received
as personally motivated, regardless of its largely technical nature.
There is strong evidence that he does not benefit from being argued
with; IMHO, he might benefit from being ignored.
When he gives an enquirer a wrong answer, it would be far better just to
post, as a reply to the enquirer, the correct answer, going only so far
as to include "VK is wrong".
Bart Van der Donck's unwillingness to discuss the requirements for
modifying the XML format implied in a number of requests for
presentation changes prior to adopting the existing XML format has
potentially had the undesirable side effect of fixing the current
format, as the changes necessary to accommodate the requests for change
will break his server scripts.
Don't knock Bart. He has actually done something useful over the past
year, and you have not. If it's been a matter of discussing it with
you, I suspect his unwillingness to be because of knowing that it would
be a waste of time and get nowhere,
When I maintained a UK newsgroup FAQ, this is how it was done.
I edited the master, in real time, on my PC. That means that when I saw
anything in the printed press, or on the Web, or in News or Mail, I
would edit the master "immediately" - just as I do with the master of my
Web site. Two or three times a day, when I dialled up, my first act
would be to transfer all changed pages (site & FAQ) to Demon's server,
so that they could then be read world-wide. And at around 04:00 each
Sunday morning, a CRON job (run by someone elsewhere; not Jim, but I
imagine Jim could easily have done it) read the FAQ from the Web,
replaced the Web headers with News headers, and posted it to News.
If any reader thought a change necessary and indicated it in News or
Mail, then, after any necessary discussion, I'd implement it as above.
That news-posting has ceased; that newsgroup is no longer needed; but
the FAQ is still on my site (I hope; perhaps I should look).
Now I don't at all say that it need be done that way; but it could be
done that way, and there can be no excuse for it being done in a wildly
less effective, or totally ineffective, fashion.
Here's a thought for a newsgroup FAQ : if any newsgroup regular whose
true identity is known in the Group posts a complete new or revised FAQ
portion, and if after at least some response in the group the maintainer
considers it to be a definite improvement, then the maintainer should
put that portion into the published FAQ (in a simple PRE box of a new
colour in the Web version) as is, *with* the true name of its final
author(s).
That should encourage contributions, but relieve the maintainer if
feeling that it must be as he would have written it.