Online documentation for Geko/Mozilla browsers???

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Aidan, Nov 13, 2004.

  1. Aidan

    Aidan Guest

    I rely heavily on MSDN for documentation when it comes to
    HTML/DHTML/JavaScript/CSS but as a result I often have problems getting my
    stuff to work in Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox. I like the MSDN online
    documentation
    (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml/re
    ference/objects.asp) because it has complete lists of DHTML objects,
    properties, methods, collections and event and for each element you can
    easily view all the applicable attributes/propertes, behaviors, collections,
    events, filters, methods, objects and styles. And it is a all very well
    cross-referenced so for example if you are looking at an event you can see
    all the elements that it applies to.

    Is there any online equivalent for Mozilla/Geko based browsers?

    I have explored the Gecko DOM reference at
    http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref but frankly this sucks. I cannot find
    a complete list of all HTML elements and all attributes/properties, methods,
    events, styles etc. I'm thinking there has got to be some decent
    documentation like that on MSDN out there., can anybody point me in the
    right direction?
     
    Aidan, Nov 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aidan

    VK Guest

    At the time being there are not any, at least nothing staying by quality
    level near to MSDN.

    The attitude here is:
    "IE is all non-standard, so they have to support their own full
    documentation. WE are all fully standard, so just read the relevant 3W/ISO
    papers. You have a question about our JavaScript? Go read the latest ECMA
    specs. CSS - the latest 3W docs. DHTML - the same, etc."

    IMHO this is just a primitive laziness and a desire to save money hidden
    behind a "Great cause" explanation.
     
    VK, Nov 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Aidan

    Fred Oz Guest

    VK wrote:
    > At the time being there are not any, at least nothing staying by quality
    > level near to MSDN.


    True enough.

    > The attitude here is:
    > "IE is all non-standard, so they have to support their own full
    > documentation. WE are all fully standard, so just read the relevant 3W/ISO
    > papers. You have a question about our JavaScript? Go read the latest ECMA
    > specs. CSS - the latest 3W docs. DHTML - the same, etc."


    Please provide links to where this attitude is supported by any
    official sponsor or moderator of this group.

    > IMHO this is just a primitive laziness and a desire to save money hidden
    > behind a "Great cause" explanation.


    And the reason you are watching this group is what - an altruistic
    desire to improve the world? Or do you get some great advice and tips
    for minimal effort and zero cost?

    I suspect that you are partially correct - Mozilla.org does not have
    the resouces of Microsoft and therefore can't support a similar level
    of on-line documentation. However, I don't think that is a reason for
    such abusive language.

    If you can't prove your assertion, please apologise to those whose
    efforts keep this new group active and informative.

    Fred.
     
    Fred Oz, Nov 13, 2004
    #3
  4. On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:45:17 +0100, VK <> wrote:

    > At the time being there are not any, at least nothing staying by quality
    > level near to MSDN.


    The MSDN Library is a fine reference for writing for IE. However, the
    documentation is inaccurate in some places. The biggest problem is that
    Microsoft claim that some of the features are defined by the W3C when they
    are not. Similarly, they describe some IE-specific behaviour as
    conformant, when it is quite the opposite.

    If you want accurate references, go to source. They're easy to read. If,
    for convenience, you want to use MSDN, just take what it states with a
    pinch of salt.

    [snip]

    Mike

    --
    Michael Winter
    Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
     
    Michael Winter, Nov 13, 2004
    #4
  5. Aidan

    VK Guest

    > If you can't prove your assertion, please apologise to those whose
    > efforts keep this new group active and informative.


    I am begging your pardon? Please point me on any part of my previous message
    where I would insult (directly or indirectly) the
    news group named *comp.lang.javascript*, also as any other news groups.

    The OP's question was NOT about a good JavaScript-related news group. He
    asked about an official MSDN's style and level online documentation for
    Gesko-browsers. I said that there were not any, and I expressed my personal
    opinion ("IMHO") why was that so.

    Thus if you are looking for parties possibly insulted by my posting then it
    would be (including but not limited by):
    Mozilla Foundation (www.mozilla.org)
    Netscape Communications as a wholly owned subsidiary of AOL, Inc.
    (www.netscape.com)
    Opera Software ASA (www.opera.com)

    From these three the Mozilla Foundation is the most severely insulted: the
    OP said that their documentation "sucks", and I agreed with him and I am
    ready to confirm it again.
    The only formal pardon I may give is, that at least their docs are
    presented. Netscape (upon the closure of DevEdge) and Opera are both simply
    sending you to the hell... sorry... to the original 3W/ISO papers, or to 3th
    party revelations over "black box" studies.
     
    VK, Nov 13, 2004
    #5
  6. Aidan

    VK Guest

    > If you want accurate references, go to source.

    Another fancy thing is about referring to ISO: while 3W is a FREE public
    source of documentation, ISO is a FEE-BASED source of such. For example, the
    latest documentation for ECMAScript cost you 220 Swiss francs (ca. $188) per
    download:
    http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=33835
    &ICS1=35&ICS2=60&ICS3=

    So giving a free browser and referring to ISO (for script questions, for
    example) is similar to provide a free appliance but charge a high fee for
    its manual. (Of course nobody pays to ISO, but we are talking from the legal
    point of view).

    Any browser is a commercial product first, even if it's free (the benefits
    are gained in indirect way). And a luck of good service can kill any product
    better than any bugs.


    Anyone from Mozilla Foundation: make a damn good online interactive
    cross-referenced documentation! It's OK if the facts will repeat other
    sources: there are still enough of electrons in the universe!
     
    VK, Nov 13, 2004
    #6
  7. On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:00:18 +0100, VK <> wrote:

    >> If you want accurate references, go to source.

    >
    > Another fancy thing is about referring to ISO:


    Where did I, or anyone else, refer to ISO?

    > while 3W is a FREE public source of documentation


    It's the W3C, by the way.

    > ISO is a FEE-BASED source of such.


    I know, and their prices are extortionate in my opinion. That's why I've
    never had an official copy of the C++ Standard, despite the fact I've
    needed to refer to it on many occasions. I've had to make do with compiler
    documentation.

    > For example, the latest documentation for ECMAScript cost you 220 Swiss
    > francs (ca. $188) per download:


    If you have any sense at all, you'll get it for free directly from ECMA.
    For a start you'll get the third edition, not the second. The link is in
    the FAQ.

    [link]

    By the way, you should wrap long links with <URL:...>:

    <URL:http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=33835&ICS1=35&ICS2=60&ICS3=>

    [snip]

    > Anyone from Mozilla Foundation: make a damn good online interactive
    > cross-referenced documentation!


    The documentation is open-source, just like the code base. If you want
    them to have documentation that badly, why don't you write something and
    submit it?

    [snip]

    Mike

    --
    Michael Winter
    Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
     
    Michael Winter, Nov 13, 2004
    #7
  8. Aidan

    Fred Oz Guest

    VK wrote:
    >> If you can't prove your assertion, please apologise to those whose
    >> efforts keep this new group active and informative.

    >
    >
    > I am begging your pardon? Please point me on any part of my previous message
    > where I would insult (directly or indirectly) the
    > news group named *comp.lang.javascript*, also as any other news groups.
    >


    It might be the part starting:

    "The attitude here is:..."

    > The OP's question was NOT about a good JavaScript-related news group. He


    Then why did you proceed to pay out on the news group with your claim
    to know the "attitude here"?

    > From these three the Mozilla Foundation is the most severely insulted: the
    > OP said that their documentation "sucks", and I agreed with him and I am
    > ready to confirm it again.


    Maybe, but that is no reason to pay out on them. They provide a free
    browser and free developer support that is far superior to some of
    their commercial rivals such as Opera and Netscape. To expect them to
    provide a site like Microsoft's is unrealistic.

    You may not have intended to insult anyone, Mozilla et al don't need me
    to defend them. However I would ask that you adopt a more moderate
    tone in replies and don't presume to know "the attitude here".

    Fred.
     
    Fred Oz, Nov 14, 2004
    #8
  9. Aidan

    VK Guest

    OK, we are getting closer to the bug... :)

    The statement "The attitude here is:..." has been used in the context of the
    previous constructs stating that there were not any online Gesko docs on the
    level of usability of MSDN.
    Thus the variable "here" should be casted to "in this situation" or (full
    casting) "by the Gesko-based software producers".
    Thus the entire statement equals to "The attitude of the Gesko-based
    software producers...".

    The casting "here" == "comp.lang.javascript" is technically possible, but
    has no logic in it: why all from the sky blue would I attack a news group,
    never mentioned in the OP's and my reply and irrelevant to the subject?

    IMHO (IMHO!) the right casting option (the first from above) should have
    higher priority.

    ;-)
     
    VK, Nov 15, 2004
    #9
    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. Jonel Rienton

    ASP.Net and Mozilla browsers

    Jonel Rienton, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,272
    stefano mostarda
    Nov 28, 2003
  2. Chad Lupkes
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    573
    Chad Lupkes
    Aug 16, 2003
  3. Aidan
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    739
  4. El Kabong

    Browsers, browsers! Quo vadis?

    El Kabong, May 11, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    906
    dorayme
    May 13, 2007
  5. Aaron Gray
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    132
    Aaron Gray
    Jan 4, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page