<FAQENTRY> 3.2 update needed

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by VK, Nov 1, 2005.

  1. VK

    VK Guest

    <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ3_2>

    The parts where update, replacement
    or add-on is needed are in <update> tag.


    3.2 What online resources are available?

    Javascript FAQ sites, please check these first:-
    <http://developer.irt.org/script/script.htm>
    <update>
    irt.org server seems dead (tracert and ping fail on it)
    As the first suggested link must be fixed ASAP
    </update>

    <http://javascript.faqts.com/> - OK

    Index of Netscape 4 JavaScript docs online and for download:-
    <http://devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/>
    <update>
    Hello there! DevEdge is gone *several years ago*.
    Online documentation can be found at:
    <http://web.archive.org/web/20040827051054/devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/>

    Zipped download package is not available. I'm ready to volunteer to
    provide a copy of this package to the FAQ administrator or have it
    uploaded to <http://www.geocities.com/schools_ring/>
    </update>

    Online Gecko DOM Reference:-
    <http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref>
    <update>
    <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Gecko_DOM_Reference>
    (autoforward still works but for how long?)
    <update>
    Download:-
    <http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref.zip> - OK

    Microsoft (D)HTML reference:-
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/dhtml_reference_entry.asp>

    <update>
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/dhtml_reference_entry.asp>
    </update>

    JScript reference and main Microsoft script site:-
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsoriJScript.asp>

    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting/>
    <update>
    Microsoft JScript main site:-
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsoriJScript.asp>
    Microsoft JScript Language Reference:-
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jslrfjscriptlanguagereference.asp>
    </update>

    Opera Documentation:-
    <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/#ecmascript>
    <update>
    <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/js/>
    <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/js/ecma/>
    </update>

    <update>
    (Suggested add-on)
    Safari DOM Documentation:-
    <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/WebKit_DOM/index.html>
    Safari JavaScript Reference:-
    <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariJSRef/index.html>
    </update>

    <snip>

    DHTML source code and tutorials:-
    <http://www.dansteinman.com/dynduo/>
    <update>
    dansteinman.com server gives 403 - Access Forbidden error
    </update>

    <http://www.w3schools.com/>
    <update>
    <http://www.w3schools.com/dhtml/default.asp>
    </update>

    Sites focused on using Scripting to automate Windows:-
    <http://www.windows-script.com/>
    <update>
    <http://groups.msn.com/windowsscript>
    (autoforwarding is *very* slow and it works to the end of this year
    only)
    </update>
    <http://cwashington.netreach.net/> - OK

    <snip>
    VK, Nov 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. VK

    Matt Kruse Guest

    Matt Kruse, Nov 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. VK

    VK Guest

    Matt Kruse wrote:
    > Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?


    Do not like "wiki" term too much but yes that would be great. It all
    depends on jibbering.com server resource donation. I'm ready to
    volunteer upon need and possibility in server-side / client-side
    programming (no content edit - it's totally reserved to the FAQ admin
    :)

    I see all FAQ's having faq id number instead of section numbers (like
    Microsoft Knowledge Base) with auto-ranking system based on how often
    particular faq has been viewed.

    Also it would be great to have Limbo FAQ Section. So new FAQ's could
    be added to this "purgatory" and voted by visitors in say one month. If
    it gets enough votes (IP-limited) it goes to the main section,
    otherwise it desappears.

    Each FAQ should have runtime edit/comment tool.

    The FAQ page itself should be both a sample of the possibilities of
    modern scripting (AJAX loading/submission comes first in my mind) and a
    sample of proper roll-back / script disabled technique.

    IMHO
    VK, Nov 1, 2005
    #3
  4. VK

    VK Guest

    Matt Kruse wrote:
    > Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?


    Also it would be great to have options:
    "Submit this FAQ translated to ..." so one could volunteer in
    translation on her mother tongue
    and
    "This FAQ also available on..." for existing translations.

    All together may get to buzy to the FAQ admin though...
    VK, Nov 1, 2005
    #4
  5. VK wrote:

    > Matt Kruse wrote:
    >> Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?

    >
    > Also it would be great to have options:
    > "Submit this FAQ translated to ..." so one could volunteer in
    > translation on her mother tongue
    > and
    > "This FAQ also available on..." for existing translations.


    I like both suggestions. Note that e.g. de.comp.lang.javascript also has a
    FAQ, so if one would desire a specific FAQ translated to German, it would
    be possible to additionally link to it and vice-versa.


    PointedEars
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 1, 2005
    #5
  6. VK

    Matt Kruse Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > I like both suggestions. Note that e.g. de.comp.lang.javascript also
    > has a FAQ, so if one would desire a specific FAQ translated to
    > German, it would be possible to additionally link to it and
    > vice-versa.


    Furthermore, I think the FAQ should be separated into a
    "comp.lang.javascript" FAQ and a general "Javascript FAQ". Separate the
    newsgroup ettiquete stuff from the general JS stuff.

    All this is probably too much for one person, so making it a wiki seems to
    be the only way to really manage it, imo.

    --
    Matt Kruse
    http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
    http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
    Matt Kruse, Nov 1, 2005
    #6
  7. VK

    VK Guest

    Matt Kruse wrote:
    > Furthermore, I think the FAQ should be separated into a
    > "comp.lang.javascript" FAQ and a general "Javascript FAQ". Separate the
    > newsgroup ettiquete stuff from the general JS stuff.
    >
    > All this is probably too much for one person, so making it a wiki seems to
    > be the only way to really manage it, imo.


    So far the FAQ section contains 61 topic. We can say that the data
    handling aspect is currently negligeable. And it should stay within
    some reasonnable limit (100-200 topics ?) otherwise it will be a
    toolbox reference and not a FAQ.

    It is more important to make the system in such way that it would be:
    1) community updatable
    2) anti-community protected (so it would not tranform into a source of
    virus and porno links)
    3) would not be a new full time job for the current FAQ admin

    Reading FAQ's lead to two possible outcome: you either get your
    question answered or you post your question to comp.lang.javascript
    Taking that, the "What should I consider before posting my question?"
    link should be provided on the FAQ page, while newsgroup ettiquete
    (pointed by this link) could be on a separate page.

    Shared project ("wiki") could be the key. All depends on what server
    resources (if any) can be provided.
    VK, Nov 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > VK wrote:
    >> Matt Kruse wrote:
    >>> Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?

    >>
    >> Also it would be great to have options:
    >> "Submit this FAQ translated to ..." so one could volunteer in
    >> translation on her mother tongue
    >> and
    >> "This FAQ also available on..." for existing translations.

    >
    > I like both suggestions. Note that e.g. de.comp.lang.javascript
    > also has a FAQ, so if one would desire a specific FAQ translated
    > to German, it would be possible to additionally link to it and
    > vice-versa.


    Translating the various articles associated with the FAQ into other
    languages is a concept that I am completely happy with (at least as far
    as the articles that I was responsible for writing are concerned). At
    least within certain restrictions. Indeed a couple of months ago I
    agreed to a French translation of:-

    <URL: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html >

    On the condition that the result be publicly available (so we could link
    to it from the original), preserve all of the original credits and that
    I could verify the accuracy of the translation (I was going to ask one
    of my French colleagues to check the translation). As the result is at:-

    <URL:
    http://developer.mozilla.org/fr/docs/Le_principe_de_"fermeture"_en_J
    avaScript >

    - you would imagine that satisfying those criteria would not be a
    problem. But the translator decided, for some unknown reason, to split
    the article up across numerous pages (which is not the way in which I
    designed it to be read) and every time I visit that page half the links
    into the sections of the article don't work, so half the article is
    inaccessible. I cannot ask any of my colleagues to verify the
    translation, because they cannot get at all of it, and I cannot justify
    linking to it as it is pretty useless in its fractional state.

    The ease with which someone can take something an intrinsically reliable
    as an article marked up in HTML and render it broken is sometimes
    astounding. That it should be contributors to develope.mozilla.org who
    are achieving this is particularly disappointing.

    As to the FAQ being a wiki; I have said from the outset, and it is
    stated in the notes, that anyone wishing to contribute an article to the
    FAQ notes is free to do so, so long as they accept that the article be
    subject to public technical scrutiny on the group (and accepted as
    accurate/useful) and may be subject to unrestricted future editing (in
    the event that it becomes inaccurate at some future point).

    The total number of articles proposed for inclusion in the FAQ notes in
    the last two years is one. And that written by VK; factually incorrect,
    confused and misleading, and so not included because it did not (and
    could not) pass the scrutiny of the group.

    And we are not even restricted to whole articles, there is the
    miscellaneous tips and tricks page, where any well explained specific
    technique might be presented, but no contributions there either.

    So given that nobody seems willing or able to contribute anything
    substantial to the FAQ what would you expect to appear in such a wiki?
    Fragmentary arguments? We can get plenty of those from the group
    archives. And to retain the usefulness of the FAQ it would be necessary
    to weed out the wrong, inaccurate and superficial. If asking for
    contributions yields nothing then allowing contributions and then
    weeding out the worthless is also likely to yield nothing, only in the
    latter case it requires a constant effort to achieve that.

    Richard.
    Richard Cornford, Nov 1, 2005
    #8
  9. Richard Cornford wrote:

    > As to the FAQ being a wiki; I have said from the outset, and it is
    > stated in the notes, that anyone wishing to contribute an article to the
    > FAQ notes is free to do so, so long as they accept that the article be
    > subject to public technical scrutiny on the group (and accepted as
    > accurate/useful) and may be subject to unrestricted future editing (in
    > the event that it becomes inaccurate at some future point).
    >
    > The total number of articles proposed for inclusion in the FAQ notes in
    > the last two years is one. And that written by VK; factually incorrect,
    > confused and misleading, and so not included because it did not (and
    > could not) pass the scrutiny of the group.


    The problem is that complete elaborate, technically perfect articles are
    expected from one contributor. Who will take the time for that? I'd
    rather think of a FAQ as a collection of solutions to known problems a
    majority of active posters can agree to, mainly short, if possible.

    A FAQ (list) should precise, but not too long and too detailed in itself.
    Links to detailed explanations are OK. But what would you think if it
    takes less time posting a FAQ to the newsgroup and probably get it
    answered than reading the FAQ list and finding the answer there? Would
    you not rather post the FAQ?

    > And we are not even restricted to whole articles, there is the
    > miscellaneous tips and tricks page, where any well explained specific
    > technique might be presented, but no contributions there either.


    What about postings like <>?
    Are they not worthy to be considered or what is the matter?

    > So given that nobody seems willing or able to contribute anything
    > substantial to the FAQ what would you expect to appear in such a wiki?
    > Fragmentary arguments? We can get plenty of those from the group
    > archives. And to retain the usefulness of the FAQ it would be necessary
    > to weed out the wrong, inaccurate and superficial. If asking for
    > contributions yields nothing then allowing contributions and then
    > weeding out the worthless is also likely to yield nothing, only in the
    > latter case it requires a constant effort to achieve that.


    True, because the initial condition is wrong :)


    PointedEars
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 1, 2005
    #9
  10. VK

    VK Guest

    Richard Cornford wrote:
    > And to retain the usefulness of the FAQ it would be necessary
    > to weed out the wrong, inaccurate and superficial.


    First thing first: FAQ 3.2 has to be updated at least to the level of
    right working links. If you have any experience in the web development
    you have to know that nothing decreases more a web source worthiness
    than broken or misleading links. Forget suggested Safari sources
    add-on, but at least *existing links have to be either working or
    removed*. Period.
    Besides the restored "usefulness of the FAQ" it will show that there is
    some administration behind the scene. Right now FAQ Poster seems to be
    some autonome machine from hell somebody launched at least 4 years ago
    (based on some expired links) and never came back since then.

    > Indeed a couple of months ago I
    > agreed to a French translation of:-


    Sad story but you need be carefull in making publishing agreement. Next
    time call you lawyer before say "Yes" ;-)


    > As to the FAQ being a wiki; I have said from the outset, and it is
    > stated in the notes, that anyone wishing to contribute an article to the
    > FAQ notes is free to do so, so long as they accept that the article be
    > subject to public technical scrutiny


    and your final denial. For your information my ArrayAndHash article got
    so far 285 visitors where 270 came from Google using keywords:
    "javascript invalid array length"
    "javascript wrong array length"
    "javascript array length value"

    I guess these 270 requests would be posted in this group otherwise.


    > The total number of articles proposed for inclusion in the FAQ notes in
    > the last two years is one. And that written by VK; factually incorrect,
    > confused and misleading, and so not included because it did not (and
    > could not) pass the scrutiny of the group.


    See the above and gave your own text to the FAQ ("Array length
    property, children, is not really length and actually there is no array
    as such and...")

    > So given that nobody seems willing or able to contribute anything
    > substantial to the FAQ what would you expect to appear in such a wiki?
    > Fragmentary arguments? We can get plenty of those from the group
    > archives. And to retain the usefulness of the FAQ it would be necessary
    > to weed out the wrong, inaccurate and superficial. If asking for
    > contributions yields nothing then allowing contributions and then
    > weeding out the worthless is also likely to yield nothing, only in the
    > latter case it requires a constant effort to achieve that.


    Please, just correct the broken link in the topic 3.2 - it really
    sucks. The rest is a hopeless case.
    VK, Nov 1, 2005
    #10
  11. JRS: In article <>, dated Tue, 1 Nov 2005
    08:21:56, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Matt Kruse
    <> posted :
    >VK wrote:
    >> <snip>

    >
    >Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?


    No. The important thing is that the FAQ is updated only by a known,
    knowledgeable person, is distributed in News, and is reviewed by at
    least some of the regulars; it may be hard to understand in places, but
    it is pretty trustworthy.

    By all means have a wiki as well, though.

    --
    © 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, Nov 1, 2005
    #11
  12. JRS: In article <>, dated Tue, 1 Nov 2005
    10:21:57, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Matt Kruse
    <> posted :
    >Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >> I like both suggestions. Note that e.g. de.comp.lang.javascript also
    >> has a FAQ, so if one would desire a specific FAQ translated to
    >> German, it would be possible to additionally link to it and
    >> vice-versa.

    >
    >Furthermore, I think the FAQ should be separated into a
    >"comp.lang.javascript" FAQ and a general "Javascript FAQ". Separate the
    >newsgroup ettiquete stuff from the general JS stuff.


    No. Having them together significantly raises the likelihood that the
    etiquette part will be seen. YSCIB.


    >All this is probably too much for one person, so making it a wiki seems to
    >be the only way to really manage it, imo.


    Not necessarily. I have suggested that the Friday FAQ posting should
    instead post a plain text article, formatted solely as a list of items
    (with a corresponding Web jibbering/*.txt page being a straight copy).

    Then the Editor of that part could be offered items in News, and (after
    discussion in News) could copy'n'paste them directly into the text,
    replacing them when better is offered for the part. That should be much
    easier than formatting the main part, needing only a dozen or so
    mouse/keyboard actions per item.

    Stable parts could be transferred to the Monday FAQ as time permits.

    OTOH, the new part could well be done by another.

    --
    © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
    The Big-8 newsgroup management is attempting to legitimise its questionable
    practices while retaining its elitist hegemony. Read <URL:news:news.groups>.
    Dr John Stockton, Nov 1, 2005
    #12
  13. On 01/11/2005 14:04, VK wrote:

    [snip]

    > Hello there! DevEdge is gone *several years ago*.


    DevEdge was taken down last year. Look at the URL you posted:

    > Online documentation can be found at:
    > <http://web.archive.org/web/20040827051054/devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/>


    2004-08-27 was the date the Wayback Machine crawled the DevEdge site, so
    'several years' is really very wrong.

    Incidentially, both Mozilla and Sun Microsystems have archived the
    JavaScript 1.3 Guide and Reference. As they will likely maintain those
    archives (not that there's much to maintain), the Internet Archive will
    just store them so linking to one of the former would be better.

    [snip]

    > Microsoft (D)HTML reference:-
    > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/dhtml_reference_entry.asp>
    >
    > <update>
    > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/dhtml_reference_entry.asp>
    > </update>


    That form of URL breaks in some browsers. Microsoft sends a redirection
    response to a rather useless gateway for browsers that it doesn't like.
    Opera versions prior to 8.0 are one such browser, despite the fact that
    Opera performs adequately (the tree doesn't work, but the content does).

    [snip]

    > Opera Documentation:-
    > <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/#ecmascript>
    > <update>
    > <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/js/>
    > <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/js/ecma/>
    > </update>


    I don't see any need to change that URL. It leads to a good overview of
    scripting support that neither of the others you suggest provide, plus
    the destinations that those links lead to are available from that section.

    [snip]

    > <http://www.w3schools.com/>
    > <update>
    > <http://www.w3schools.com/dhtml/default.asp>
    > </update>


    http://www.w3schools.com/dhtml/

    would be a better URL. That is immune to any technology or configuration
    changes W3Schools might choose to make.

    [snip]

    That wasn't a comprehensive review of your proposals. Just comments on
    sites with which I'm familiar.

    Mike

    --
    Michael Winter
    Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
    Michael Winter, Nov 1, 2005
    #13
  14. VK

    VK Guest

    Michael Winter wrote:
    > DevEdge was taken down last year. Look at the URL you posted:
    >
    > > Online documentation can be found at:
    > > <http://web.archive.org/web/20040827051054/devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/>

    >
    > 2004-08-27 was the date the Wayback Machine crawled the DevEdge site, so
    > 'several years' is really very wrong.


    DevEdge got down soon after the premature borne baby NN 6.0 beta
    (really NN 5.0 beta) unless I'm getting senile memory problems (which
    should be not in my 30's but who knows) :)

    I'm not really sure how Wayback Machine works, so I cannot comment on
    it. There is a shorter link to
    <http://devedge-temp.mozilla.org/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/index.html>


    However it doesn't change the fact that the link doesn't work *now*.

    > Incidentially, both Mozilla and Sun Microsystems have archived the
    > JavaScript 1.3 Guide and Reference. As they will likely maintain those
    > archives (not that there's much to maintain), the Internet Archive will
    > just store them so linking to one of the former would be better.


    See the alternative link above. But please let's not transform the
    issue into another endless discussion "in the search of the really best
    solution under the strict community scrutiny". The link is broken; so
    please link it to hell any location of the declared source, relink it
    later if needed or just get it out.

    > That wasn't a comprehensive review of your proposals. Just comments on
    > sites with which I'm familiar.


    I see this review (possibly wrongly) as an attempt to disavow any
    necessity of any changes in the FAQ Bible under the slogan "Is it
    possible for any good to come out of Nazareth?". Othervise your primary
    comment should be on:
    " Javascript FAQ sites, please check these first:-
    http://developer.irt.org/script/script.htm"
    and not to me but to the FAQ Poster

    And DevEdge link should be commented not now and not to me but to FAQ
    Poster and *at least* one year ago.
    VK, Nov 1, 2005
    #14
  15. VK

    Randy Webb Guest

    Dr John Stockton said the following on 11/1/2005 4:27 PM:
    > JRS: In article <>, dated Tue, 1 Nov 2005
    > 08:21:56, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Matt Kruse
    > <> posted :
    >
    >>VK wrote:
    >>
    >>><snip>

    >>
    >>Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?

    >
    >
    > No. The important thing is that the FAQ is updated only by a known,
    > knowledgeable person, is distributed in News, and is reviewed by at
    > least some of the regulars; it may be hard to understand in places, but
    > it is pretty trustworthy.


    True, but, I don't see why the FAQ Editor has to be a "knowledgeable
    person" if that knowledge is in reference to scripting itself. Other
    than knowing how the server side processing works. It only takes a
    person that can review, count votes, and edit text to maintain it. The
    auto-posting of the FAQ is done automatically.

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
    Randy Webb, Nov 2, 2005
    #15
  16. VK

    RobG Guest

    Matt Kruse wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >> I like both suggestions. Note that e.g. de.comp.lang.javascript also
    >> has a FAQ, so if one would desire a specific FAQ translated to
    >> German, it would be possible to additionally link to it and
    >> vice-versa.

    >
    > Furthermore, I think the FAQ should be separated into a
    > "comp.lang.javascript" FAQ and a general "Javascript FAQ". Separate the
    > newsgroup ettiquete stuff from the general JS stuff.
    >
    > All this is probably too much for one person, so making it a wiki seems to
    > be the only way to really manage it, imo.
    >


    Has anyone looked at wikipedia lately? It's free, supports mulitple
    languages and already has a lot of JavaScript stuff - maybe a bit of
    effort from those here will keep it up-to-date?

    It may be a useful adjunct to the jibbering.com site, though not really
    a replacement.



    --
    Rob
    RobG, Nov 2, 2005
    #16
  17. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > Richard Cornford wrote:

    <snip>
    > The problem is that complete elaborate, technically perfect
    > articles are expected from one contributor.


    Contributions don't necessarily have to take the form of articles. One
    thing that would be useful would be proposals for the exact wording of
    quick answers (rather than just calls for them to exist). Unfortunately
    that is a long way from being an easy task itself, as the 'question' has
    to obviously relate to something that is frequently asked and the answer
    has to be short, precise, accurate and near comprehensive. It is
    actually easier to write a page on most subjects that attempt to boil
    them down to a quick answer.

    > Who will take the time for that?


    Well, I will take the time to do it eventually. This last year time has
    been a problem, partly because I have been in charge of all the
    client-side work an a somewhat ambitions web application but mostly
    because my Father has been dying from terminal cancer and his desire to
    spend as much time as possible with his family was difficult (even
    unreasonable) to decline.

    Though there is still the problem that I am not really qualified to
    write on some aspects of the language. Regular expressions being a case
    in point. The FAQ really needs expanding in the area of regular
    expressions, they are the subject of no less than 10% of ECMA 262. But
    as time goes by I am finding myself with ever less reason to be using
    regular expressions. It means that for me to write the needed material
    will take a great deal of research on my part, which is not actually a
    bad thing but will take time.

    > I'd rather think of a FAQ as a collection of solutions
    > to known problems a majority of active posters can agree
    > to, mainly short, if possible.


    That is certainly the ideal.

    > A FAQ (list) should precise, but not too long and too
    > detailed in itself. Links to detailed explanations are
    > OK. But what would you think if it takes less time
    > posting a FAQ to the newsgroup and probably get it
    > answered than reading the FAQ list and finding the
    > answer there? Would you not rather post the FAQ?


    I almost didn't get that. You mean a questioner posts the question
    because it takes too long to look through the FAQ to find the answer.
    Well there is the proposal that everyone should read all of a technical
    group's FAQ before even starting to post to the group, but as a newcomer
    finds that out by reading the FAQ there is an obvious paradox in that.

    >> And we are not even restricted to whole articles, there
    >> is the miscellaneous tips and tricks page, where any well
    >> explained specific technique might be presented, but no
    >> contributions there either.

    >
    > What about postings like <>?
    > Are they not worthy to be considered or what is the matter?


    That article is mostly a list of suggested alternatives for broken links
    and omissions that should be considered for inclusion. As such it is
    (and similar posts) useful, and I will be making changes with a
    consideration of that article. Though as far as the JavaScript 1.3
    documentation goes I currently favour linking to the versions that Sun
    have published. Partly because the 'temp' in devedge-temp.mozilla.org
    does not inspire confidence that those links will be long lasting.

    As it happens I have taken this week off work with the intention of
    getting a FAQ update done and uploaded to Jim's server by the end of the
    week.

    <snip>
    >> ... is also likely to yield nothing, only in the latter
    >> case it requires a constant effort to achieve that.

    >
    > True, because the initial condition is wrong :)


    Probably more 'not ideal' that actually wrong.

    Richard.
    Richard Cornford, Nov 2, 2005
    #17
  18. VK wrote:
    <snip>
    > ... . For your information my ArrayAndHash article
    > got so far 285 visitors where 270 came from Google
    > using keywords:
    > "javascript invalid array length"
    > "javascript wrong array length"
    > "javascript array length value"
    >
    > I guess these 270 requests would be posted in this
    > group otherwise.

    <snip>

    Are you proud of that? I am relieved that so few people have seen the
    page as it has considerable potential to do harm.

    Richard.
    Richard Cornford, Nov 2, 2005
    #18
  19. VK

    Paul Cooper Guest

    On 1 Nov 2005 07:31:19 -0800, "VK" <> wrote:

    >Matt Kruse wrote:
    >> Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?

    >
    >Also it would be great to have options:
    >"Submit this FAQ translated to ..." so one could volunteer in
    >translation on her mother tongue
    >and
    >"This FAQ also available on..." for existing translations.
    >
    >All together may get to buzy to the FAQ admin though...


    Translation is very useful, of course, but people need to be aware
    which version of the FAQ has been translated, as this is a volunteer
    activity that will depend on the time available. There are also
    problems with translation - not so much in a technical context, but it
    is worth being aware that meaning does shift in translation, as
    concepts don't map one-to-one between languages and cultures. The
    technical part won't pose many problems in this area, but the
    netiquette bit would! I think one version (probably the English one)
    will have to be stated as the "authoritative" one.

    Paul
    Paul Cooper, Nov 2, 2005
    #19
  20. Richard Cornford wrote:

    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >> The problem is that complete elaborate, technically perfect
    >> articles are expected from one contributor.

    >
    > Contributions don't necessarily have to take the form of articles. One
    > thing that would be useful would be proposals for the exact wording of
    > quick answers (rather than just calls for them to exist). Unfortunately
    > that is a long way from being an easy task itself, as the 'question' has
    > to obviously relate to something that is frequently asked and the answer
    > has to be short, precise, accurate and near comprehensive. It is
    > actually easier to write a page on most subjects that attempt to boil
    > them down to a quick answer.


    Why not

    "Quick answer: ...
    Long Answer: ..."?

    Or have a separate "Quick Answers" section which we did in
    the de.comp.lang.javascript FAQ <http://dcljs.de/faq/>.

    >> Who will take the time for that?

    >
    > Well, I will take the time to do it eventually. This last year time has
    > been a problem, partly because I have been in charge of all the
    > client-side work an a somewhat ambitions web application but mostly
    > because my Father has been dying from terminal cancer and his desire to
    > spend as much time as possible with his family was difficult (even
    > unreasonable) to decline.


    I'm really sorry if my posting was read as too demanding. Of course
    everyone here has a real life. What I meant was not your but the
    contributor's time. Instead of relying on one contributor and one
    editor (which seems to be only you) to a specific topic, it seems more
    prudent to have contributions discussed in the newsgroup to finally
    achieve a wording we can agree to.

    As for your father, I mourn with you. I'm glad for you that you took
    the time to be with him. After all, family and friends are the most
    important things in our lives.

    > Though there is still the problem that I am not really qualified to
    > write on some aspects of the language. Regular expressions being a case
    > in point. The FAQ really needs expanding in the area of regular
    > expressions,


    ACK

    > they are the subject of no less than 10% of ECMA 262.


    That would not be my criteria for selection but the overall amount of
    questions regarding and problems solvable by using Regular Expressions.
    After all, it's a _FAQ_ (Frequently Asked Questions) list, not a detailed
    documentation on the language. Let's not forget that.

    > But as time goes by I am finding myself with ever less reason to be using
    > regular expressions.


    Interesting, it's rather the opposite with me :)

    > It means that for me to write the needed material will take a great deal
    > of research on my part, which is not actually a bad thing but will take
    > time.


    I think you confuse FAQ list and language documentation.

    >> A FAQ (list) should precise, but not too long and too
    >> detailed in itself. Links to detailed explanations are
    >> OK. But what would you think if it takes less time
    >> posting a FAQ to the newsgroup and probably get it
    >> answered than reading the FAQ list and finding the
    >> answer there? Would you not rather post the FAQ?

    >
    > I almost didn't get that. You mean a questioner posts the question
    > because it takes too long to look through the FAQ to find the answer.


    Yes, what I meant is that many people, which not only include laymen on a
    subject, are repelled by long documents. The FAQ has been more and more
    turning into an elaborate documentation of the J(ava)Script/ECMAScript
    languages which is not what it should be. The documentations are already
    written, the purpose of the FAQ list is to answer frequently asked all-day
    questions consisely and merely point to (the chapter or section of) the
    documentations, correct or extend them if they are wrong or not exhaustive
    in parts.

    > Well there is the proposal that everyone should read all of a technical
    > group's FAQ before even starting to post to the group, but as a newcomer
    > finds that out by reading the FAQ there is an obvious paradox in that.


    I cannot agree to that proposal. That everyone should read all of it
    before posting is simply not what a FAQ (list) should be. Instead, it
    should provide mainly a short answer to a specific question in case
    that question has been asked much too often, to save regulars of the
    newsgroup time reading and posting replies, to allow them to invest
    that time to answer *new*, more interesting, questions and to try to
    solve new problems instead.

    >> What about postings like <>?
    >> Are they not worthy to be considered or what is the matter?

    >
    > That article is mostly a list of suggested alternatives for broken links
    > and omissions that should be considered for inclusion. As such it is
    > (and similar posts) useful, and I will be making changes with a
    > consideration of that article.


    Thanks.

    > Though as far as the JavaScript 1.3 documentation goes I currently favour
    > linking to the versions that Sun have published. Partly because the 'temp'
    > in devedge-temp.mozilla.org does not inspire confidence that those links
    > will be long lasting.


    Agreed.

    > As it happens I have taken this week off work with the intention of
    > getting a FAQ update done and uploaded to Jim's server by the end of the
    > week.


    In case you need or want support, I volunteer.

    > <snip>
    >>> ... is also likely to yield nothing, only in the latter
    >>> case it requires a constant effort to achieve that.

    >> True, because the initial condition is wrong :)

    >
    > Probably more 'not ideal' that actually wrong.


    The initial condition was, informally speaking, that
    nobody else cares about it, which is not true.


    PointedEars
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Nov 2, 2005
    #20
    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. Dr John Stockton

    RegExp FAQENTRY

    Dr John Stockton, Mar 5, 2004, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    91
    Dr John Stockton
    Mar 7, 2004
  2. VK
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    536
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Jul 13, 2005
  3. VK
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    151
    Dr J R Stockton
    Jan 30, 2007
  4. VK
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    175
    Dr J R Stockton
    Mar 15, 2007
  5. VK
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    79
    David Mark
    Feb 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page