<FAQENTRY> 3.2 update needed

[VK]

<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/20040827...ibrary/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/d...hor/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/d...56/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>

 

[Matt Kruse]

<snip>

Perhaps the FAQ should be a wiki?

 

[VK]

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]

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...

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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

 

[Matt Kruse]

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.

 

[VK]

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.

 

[Richard Cornford]

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.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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.

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

 

[VK]

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.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Tue, 1 Nov 2005
08:21:56, seen in Matt Kruse

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.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Tue, 1 Nov 2005
10:21:57, seen in Matt Kruse

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.

 

[Michael Winter]

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/20040827...ibrary/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/d...hor/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

 

[VK]

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


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.

 

[Randy Webb]

Dr John Stockton said the following on 11/1/2005 4:27 PM:

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Tue, 1 Nov 2005
08:21:56, seen in Matt Kruse



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.

 

[RobG]

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.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Richard Cornford 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.

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.

What about postings like <[email protected]>?
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.

True, because the initial condition is wrong

Probably more 'not ideal' that actually wrong.

Richard.

 

[Richard Cornford]

VK wrote:

... . 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.

 

[Paul Cooper]

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

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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

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.

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.

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.

Probably more 'not ideal' that actually wrong.

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


PointedEars