button.disabled - firefox vs IE difference

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Not understood. I have never mentioned `onunload' regarding this, I
recommended `onsubmit' (instead of `onclick'). `onunload' code is
executed when one navigates away from the document or the window is
closed. That does not help here because you cannot re-enable the
controls later if the Back feature is used. There is no event to
handle this, at least no interoperable one that I know of.

As I said: "so while the user is going forward it fires, preparing it
for when they come back."
My purpose in mentioning an "onunload" alternative is clear, even
without reading your prior post. Onunload fires as the page is being
exited, [...]

.... or the window is closed. However, one cannot expect that full DOM
access is still possible at this point, so this approach is flawed.

There is no policy statement here of how I should post. [...]

[...] rather than dismissing my response as "not wanted". Needless
abrasiveness such as that "not wanted" is what kills online user
groups.

It is of course not your response that is not wanted on Usenet,
and I never said that; it was merely your _posting style_.


PointedEars

 

[Merennulli]

There is no policy statement here of how I should post. [...]

There is. <URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3>

Under the heading "comp.lang.javascript tips".

Sorry, but tips != policy.

Further, it even suggests using Google Groups to read replies. Had you
read your own source, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm done arguing this.

 

[VK]

Question: What's the worst thing to happen to Usenet in the last 15 years?
Answer: Google Groups

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...orld+Wide+Web"&rnum=13&hl=en#ad173ff36141539f>

Now the task: by using "World Wide Web" search string (plus date range)
get me this thread out of your most beloved newsreader.

It is a blessure that DejaNews came to the idea. And it is another
blessure that Google took it over. I agree that new owner could be
possibly more generous and more interface caring. But at the dark
after-bubble period it could be as well thrown to the trash as soon as
the owner went under. I know a lot of cases of this kind happened with
rather useful databases and codes at 2000-2001.

Yes Google is pushing for non-quoting posting because they (as DejaNews
before) structure the data by threads and topics, not by individual
messages. But this push is rather soft: no prohibitions, just two extra
click - easy to bypass.

 

[Randy Webb]

VK said the following on 4/3/2006 2:45 PM:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...orld+Wide+Web"&rnum=13&hl=en#ad173ff36141539f>

Now the task: by using "World Wide Web" search string (plus date range)
get me this thread out of your most beloved newsreader.

You missed the total point of what I meant by not quoting fully (and in
context) what I said.

Yes Google is pushing for non-quoting posting

<snip>

And that is *precisely* the problem with Google Groups now and what
makes it the worst thing to happen to Usenet in 15 years. It is so
widespread (Google Groups) that newbes think its the way it should be
when it isn't.

 

[VK]

VK said the following on 4/3/2006 2:45 PM:

And that is *precisely* the problem with Google Groups now and what
makes it the worst thing to happen to Usenet in 15 years. It is so
widespread (Google Groups) that newbes think its the way it should be
when it isn't.

The question is why is Google doing it? I dare to guess it is not
because of some anti-Usenet conspiracy. The infospace pullution is one
of biggest problems of Internet. It is so often hard to find some
really iseful info because it is being burried in the "noise" which is
difficult/impossible to filter out even by the best search engines. In
this aspect quoting definitely adds more "infonoise".

X wrote:
I have a problem A
-----

I have a problem A

Here is solution B
-----

Here is solution B

<snip>
A have a question about your solution.
-----

<snip>
A have a question about your solution.

Here is my answer.

etc.

It is easy to predict that the search engine will get a hard time to
get the *right* post on request "problem A solution". At the same time
getting the right *thread* will ensure that (after some extra reading)
the right post will be found.

Just don't shoot - first listen! ;-) I am not calling for "drop the
quoting". But IMHO the traditional Usenet quoting rules should be
changed to the most fat-free variant.

 

[Randy Webb]

VK said the following on 4/5/2006 7:39 AM:

The question is why is Google doing it? I dare to guess it is not
because of some anti-Usenet conspiracy. The infospace pullution is one
of biggest problems of Internet. It is so often hard to find some
really iseful info because it is being burried in the "noise" which is
difficult/impossible to filter out even by the best search engines. In
this aspect quoting definitely adds more "infonoise".

If Google wants to minimize the space it needs to store data, then they
can start there own forum. But, they are trying to change a very long
standing procedure in Usenet for there own benefit. The ends don't
justify the means.

X wrote:
I have a problem A
-----

Here is solution B
-----

<snip>
A have a question about your solution.
-----

Here is my answer.

etc.

It is easy to predict that the search engine will get a hard time to
get the *right* post on request "problem A solution". At the same time
getting the right *thread* will ensure that (after some extra reading)
the right post will be found.

No, it will find the right post. Google particularly. It doesn't return
individual hits for the same thread, it returns one hit to that thread
(test it).

Just don't shoot - first listen! ;-) I am not calling for "drop the
quoting". But IMHO the traditional Usenet quoting rules should be
changed to the most fat-free variant.

Now, take the reverse side. The people that are in the best position to
actually give good answers don't use Google Groups to post. And they
have become accustomed to quoting, for very good reasons. If a post
isn't quoted, then I have two choices:

1) Ignore the thread
2) Go find the thread and read the entire thread to get an idea about
the conversation.

If the "experts" (I use that term loosely) continue to ignore threads
then Usenet goes to hell. You end up with a bunch of crap answers. And
Usenet is not for the benefit of Google, it is for the benefit of its
users. And the users benefit the most from quoting.

Let me give the flip side of your example though:

X wrote:
I have a problem A
-----
Y wrote:
Here is solution B
-----
X wrote:
A have a question about your solution.
-----
Y wrote:
Here is my answer.

Now, let's assume that each of those four posts are made on different
days. And, that each post is 40 lines long. If I want to know what the
answer was for, I now have to read four posts instead of one to find
out. How is that more efficient than reading this?