FAQ Topic - How do I modify the current browser window?

[FAQ server]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - How do I modify the current browser window?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a default security environment you are very limited in how much
you can modify the current browser window. You can use
` window.resizeTo ` or ` window.moveTo ` to resize or move a
window respectively, but that is it. Normally you can only
suggest chrome changes in a ` window.open `

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/methods/open_0.asp


===
Postings such as this are automatically sent once a day. Their
goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html.
The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected].

FAQ Topic - How do I modify the current browser window?

To an incomer, that might be taken as referring to modifying the
displayed contents. Something like "... current browser window
properties?" might help. Any better offers?

 

[Evertjan.]

Dr J R Stockton wrote on 15 mrt 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected].


To an incomer, that might be taken as referring to modifying the
displayed contents. Something like "... current browser window
properties?" might help. Any better offers?

Current browser window size and/or position on the screen.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>

Dr J R Stockton wrote on 15 mrt 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:


Current browser window size and/or position on the screen.

Except that a Subject Line ought to be a single line, when the window
width allows 72 characters of default text. And 'properties' also
applies to modification of other window features.

 

[Mike Duffy]

Dr J R Stockton wrote on 15 mrt 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:

Actually, you can use "document.write" to rewrite the entire page. Be
careful about what you put into the head and body sections, because you
essentially destroy the original script used to create what you write.

I have found as well that it helps to make judicious use of "setTimeout" in
order to prevent a multithreaded browser from clobbering the code if the
thread executing the script gets ahead of the one creating it.

In a way, you can write self-modifying code even if your entire web site is
on a static server. It can serve as a method to "hide" things from script
kiddies, because by the time he uses the "View Source" command, the
original code is gone. (Of course, a hax0r knows how to see the original.)

 

[Mike Duffy]

Mike Duffy said the following on 3/16/2007 6:39 PM:

Which has nothing to do with the FAQ entry.

Re-writing the entire page should modify the browser window. Or is there a
distinction between the content of the window and properties of the window?
Both contents and properties would seem to be components.

There are no "multithreaded browsers" and/or script engines.

I noticed that the setTimeout would allow the reload to execute, so I guess
I made a bad assumption. If you leave it out, you end up with a completely
blank page. Multiple threads in the browser could explain this behaviour,
but I am willing to accept your assertion that they do not come into play.
So what else could it be?

It doesn't even take a "hax0r" (whatever that me be),

It was a (lame) attempt at a joke. It's how script kiddies spell "hacker".

 

[VK]

It is a timing issue where the display won't get updated until current
script finishes executing. The setTimeout introduces a delay by causing
script execution to stop and start over. During that delay the display
gets updated.

Right, see the provisional FAQ entry at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/b1470812c5e4d3b5

P.S. If FAQ Editor is anywhere around: are the technical problems
solved by now to add the FAQ to the common list?

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

Mike Duffy said the following on 3/16/2007 6:39 PM:

Which has nothing to do with the FAQ entry.

Agreed. But the Heading of a FAQ entry should indicate, as well as
possible within an appropriate length, what the entry is ABOUT; it
should be written so as to avoid misinterpretation.

That's particularly necessary when Section 4 contains entries in
"historic" order, rather than grouped by nature of content.

 

[VK]

"add the FAQ to the common list"? WTF are you talking about? Or do you
even know?

I mean to add the FAQ (FAQ entry) at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/b1470812c5e4d3b5
edited or as it is to c.l.j. FAQ list at
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html

What in the name else could it mean?

At http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/b1470812c5e4d3b5
I pointed to a very common misunderstanding of the underlaying
problem. You said:
"Somewhere in the archives (I can't find it right now) there are
several
threads where I asked about an entry of why the display isn't being
updated. Post a short text and lets see where it goes. I don't have a
problem
adding a new entry."

I posted an open for discussion entry text. You said that there is
some problem in adding it. Now I see you are using it for answers -
but not a single comment followed so far to the FAQ proposal itself.
This way it is reasonable to ask if any problems remained to schedule
for adding the entry - I'm not saying at all to drop everything and to
run to update the page right now.

 

[Richard Cornford]

VK said the following on 3/17/2007 5:46 PM:

With "provisional" being the ky word

<snip>

That post is not even "provisional". All it does is state that its author
is "proposing to add new FAQ entry", which may be true but is very much
internal to VK's mind. It does not state that anything in the post is
intended for wider consideration as such an entry and it does not employ
the formal mechanism for indicating such (the post contains no <FA****RY>
mark-up). As a result its status is something to be ignored, and it has
been.

Richard.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Dr J R Stockton wrote on 15 mrt 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:


Current browser window size and/or position on the screen.

The "on the screen" part of that seems redundant, as it is difficult to
see what else "position" may be considered relative to when talking of
windows.

However, the question is about more than the size and position of the
window. It is intended to express someone's desire to modify things such
as the display of menu/button bars, status bars and so on (the 'chrome').
The answer given is than that you cannot expected to be allowed to modify
these things in the normal security environment, but you may be allowed
to alter the window's size and position in some cases (increasingly few
these days, and with less purpose given tabbed browsers and MDI
interfaces on browsers).

Maybe a question along the lines of:-

"How do I modify the current browser window outside of the displayed
document?"

- would suggest the correct level of discrimination (especially given
that the answer is essentially that you cannot expect to be able to).

Richard.

 

[VK]

That post is not even "provisional". All it does is state that its author
is "proposing to add new FAQ entry", which may be true but is very much
internal to VK's mind. It does not state that anything in the post is
intended for wider consideration as such an entry and it does not employ
the formal mechanism for indicating such (the post contains no <FA****RY>
mark-up).

I implore your pardon...

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FAQENTRY> in your post lets the FAQ robot
collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."

Now:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/b1470812c5e4d3b5
Post title:
"<FAQENTRY>I'm changing my page but nothing is changing on the screen.
Why?</FAQENTRY>"

If FAQ editor wants to use my old proposal so to use XML-like formal
markup for FAQ proposals then I just welcome that. I will gladly
reformat the post in a form like:
<FAQENTRY>
<TITLE>
</TITLE>
<BODY>
</BODY>
</FAQENTRY>
If some other formal markup is preferable then just point me to an
instruction page. So far as I remember it was insisted to keep a free-
form format and until stated otherwise this is still in effect.

So far - and I have at least a dozen of rather recent cases - "placing
<FAQENTRY> in your post" meant either "mark the post subject" or "mark
the relevant body part" or "mark both post subject and the relevant
body part". It also can be read as "place <FAQENTRY> marker anywhere
in your post" - though I do not recall such interpretation would be
ever used - yet it remains possible. If it is now insisted on only one
strict interpretation of "placing <FAQENTRY> in your post" then again
I welcome that but I'm asking then to point to the - obviously newly
made - instruction page.

 

[Richard Cornford]

I implore your pardon...

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FA****RY> in your post lets the FAQ
robot collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."

Now:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/b1470812c5e4d3b5
Post title:
"<FA****RY>I'm changing my page but nothing is changing on the
screen. Why?</FA****RY>"

That is a Subject header not a title.

If FAQ editor wants to use my old proposal so to use XML-like
formal markup for FAQ proposals then I just welcome that. I
will gladly reformat the post in a form like:
<FA****RY>
<TITLE>
</TITLE>
<BODY>
</BODY>
</FA****RY>

That is you in a nutshell. Someone points out that you are doing
something wrong and you immediately want to jump to an irrational
extreme.

If some other formal markup is preferable then just point
me to an instruction page.

You have cited part of it above. It is a pity that you have not
understood the section that reads "The <FA****RY> should not be used in
posts except in conjunction with a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It
should also not be literally quoted in replies, instead it should be

So far as I remember it was insisted to keep a free-
form format and until stated otherwise this is still
in effect.

So far - and I have at least a dozen of rather recent cases -
"placing <FA****RY> in your post" meant either "mark the post
subject" or "mark the relevant body part" or "mark both post
subject and the relevant body part".

Your interpretations are consistently erroneous. "In your post " does not
mean in the Subject header, as that it not in the post, and could not be
reconciled with Usenet's requirment not to assume the avalbility of a
Subject header to the reader. It is also irreconcilable with the request
to not use the literal form in follow-ups combined with the requiremnt to
not change the Subject header of a thread when the subject does not

It also can be read as "place <FA****RY> marker anywhere
in your post" - though I do not recall such interpretation
would be ever used - yet it remains possible.

I havw no idea what you are whittering on about now.

If it is now insisted on only one strict interpretation of
"placing <FA****RY> in your post" then again I welcome that
but I'm asking then to point to the - obviously newly
made - instruction page.

Bullshit. Nothing has changed. Sections of posts that include suggestions
for the attention of the FAQ editor are, as they always have been, marked
as directed in the FAQ, and such mark-up should not appear anywhere else.
If you have never understood this that is not surprising given your
record, it doesn't mean anyone else is having a problem with it.

If, instead of ignoring them, you would answer the questions you are
asked you might find progressing towards understanding much quicker.

Richard.

 

[VK]

That is a Subject header not a title.

Are we feeling especially freaky today?
There are at least three "Native English Speakers" around one baby
(FAQ text) with at least one - JRS - positioning himself nearly as God
and the last keeper of the True English (to my endless amusement btw).
Yet all together they produced the most obscure chunk of a technical
text one could imagine. Moreover and for even more fun they are now
insisting that there is some hidden clarity in this text - one just
need to read it "with a proper mindset".

Again quoting http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FA****RY> in your post lets the FAQ robot
collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."

This sentence
1) doesn't specify in what part of the post the marker should be
placed: in the subject line or in the body or reduplicated in both
parts.
2) doesn't specify if the marker should be used as explicitly spelled
thus as a single marker; or does it presume using it tag-like so with
opening <F...> tag and closing </F...> tag with the relevant content
inside these tags.

No one - just like me - ever knew what a hey did the unknown dislexer
mean while writing it, so anyone was going by her own preferred
reading. By going from the most recent requests back to past:

<FA****RY> correction
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/bd60c5921b248934
(single <F...> mark in the subject line)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/77c1a4c1de15426f
<FA****RY> text </FA****RY>
(tag-like <F...> usage in the message body)

<FA****RY> corrections
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/333a0e91da811ce1
(single <F...> mark in the subject line)

<FA****RY> 4.41 correction
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/a7dd93894394e6ec
(single <F...> mark in the subject line)

$ <FA****RY>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/3aaa990244bf1226
(single <F...> mark in the subject line)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/fee27bd0d8696c6a
<FA****RY> text <FA****RY>
(tag-like <F...> usage in the message body)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/375105828ebfcc5e
<FA****RY> text
(single <F...> mark in the message body)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/b8a3863e3c218aca
<FA****RY> text
(single <F...> mark in the message body)

<FA****RY>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/ba223469afd5aadc
<FA****RY> text
(single <F...> mark in the subject line and
single <F...> mark in the message body)

I may keep going to the past months to get even more random usages. So
far no one of them was declined for "non-appropriate <FA****RY>
formatting". The first precedent over all these years was created only
now, for my particular FAQ proposal. As interesting as it is by
itself, I don't care to re-post with any reasonable formatting. But
first get my sh** on your bullsh**:

1) For all future potential posters it will be interesting to know if
and why among all possible interpretations of FAQ 5.1 only
<FA****RY>Subject</FA****RY> is not acceptable (while
<FA****RY>Subject is fine). Moreover it is not acceptable by some
weather conditions I guess and not simply as such. See for instance
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/83167d13ea90ce98
and the like

2) Even more useful would be to join all language capabilities of
involved people - however limited they are - and try to translate FAQ
5.1 from the current Pigeon English to something not to say perfect
but at least descent. That would eliminate the funny threads like this
one in the future.

Best regards.

 

[VK]

Who is the "they" you refer to?

They! They killed Kennedy, watching each your step, reading each your
post. )

I don't give a flying mouse's rear end
if you put it in the Subject, Title, Header, Footer, Basement, on the
Moon, in a Signature, in a freaking Email or in the Outhouse.

You maybe not. Neither the robot as long as it can find
toLowerCase('<FAQ***RY>') in the post. First-time potential posters
do: because with a uncertain ugly spelled procedure in 5.1 they never
can be sure if their proposal is formally correct or not. This thread
- and my overall experience - show that in case if there will be no
lack of critics in this direction.

You need
to be careful about what you say who says what or you will find
yourself, once again, challenged to back up your claims of idiocy when
it comes to what I do or don't say/post.

Your first and last comment to
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/b1470812c5e4d3b5
so far is:
"It is so full of things that are incoherent that it's difficult to
know where to start."

I'm glad to see that the FAQ proposal formatting is not the thing you
wanted to start with. I may conduct it now from your response here.

 

[VK]

<FAQENTRY> FAQ 5.1 rewording </FAQENTRY>

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
5.1 Why do some posts have <FAQENTRY> in them ?

<current>
If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FAQENTRY> in your post lets the FAQ robot
collect the messages for easy review and inclusion. A Draft Proposal
for the FAQ is requested and appreciated.

The <FAQENTRY> should not be used in posts except in conjunction with
a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It should also not be literally
quoted in replies, instead it should be partly obscured as, e.g.
<FAQ**TRY> or similar.
</current>


<proposed>
1) If a poster feels that the question she is answering should be
covered in the FAQ then she must to enclose the relevant part of the
post by <FAQENTRY> tag. If the relevant part of the post follows
starting from some point and to the end of the post then it is also
acceptable to mark the beginning only of the relevant part by single
<FAQENTRY> tag. The case of tag(s) is not important.
2) If a poster wants to start a new thread with her FAQ request then a
Draft Proposal for the FAQ should contain <FAQENTRY> tag at the
beginning of the Subject line. If the body of the post contains any
other auxiliary text besides the Draft Proposal itself then the Draft
Proposal text should be marked same way as at point (1).

This procedure lets the FAQ robot collect the messages for easy review
and inclusion.


The <FAQENTRY> should not be used in posts except in conjunction with
a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It should also not be literally
quoted in replies, instead it should be partly obscured as, e.g.
<FAQ**TRY> or similar.
</proposed>


--
<FAQENTRY>
<FAQENTRY>
<FAQENTRY
;-)

:-|

 

[Richard Cornford]

<FAQENTRY> FAQ 5.1 rewording </FAQENTRY>

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
5.1 Why do some posts have <FAQENTRY> in them ?

<proposed>
1) If a poster feels that the question she is answering should be
covered in the FAQ then she must to enclose

Did someone mention pigeon English recently?

the relevant part of the post by <FAQENTRY> tag.

How do you "enclose" something in a single tag?

If the relevant part of the post follows
starting from some point and to the end of the post
Gibberish.

then it is also acceptable to mark the beginning only
of the relevant part by single
<FAQENTRY> tag. The case of tag(s) is not important.

If the case is not important what is the point of saying so?

2) If a poster wants to start a new thread with her FAQ request
then a Draft Proposal for the FAQ should contain <FAQENTRY> tag
at the beginning of the Subject line.

It is not acceptable Usenet practice to change the Subject header of a
thread when the subject has not changed, and generally unwelcome even if
the subject has changed. It is impossible to reconcile this fact with a
request that follow-ups do not repeat the <FA****RY> text literally as
such a follow-up would not be expected to change the subject of the
thread.

If the body of the post

"Body" would be an ambiguous term to apply to a Usenet post. They have
content preceded by Headers.

contains any other auxiliary text besides the Draft Proposal
itself then the Draft Proposal text should be marked same way
as at point (1).

This procedure lets the FAQ robot collect the messages for easy
review and inclusion.

The <FAQENTRY> should not be used in posts except in conjunction with
a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It should also not be literally
quoted in replies, instead it should be partly obscured as, e.g.
<FAQ**TRY> or similar.
</proposed>

<snip>

Where it is not acceptable to change the Subject header of a thread when
the subject has not changed it is not possible to reconcile the preceding
demand with this one.

There is nothing wrong with the text as it is now.

Richard.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Are we feeling especially freaky today?

The notion of a hearer should not be alien to anyone working in web
development. You have headers and content, in HTTP and in news posts.

There are at least three "Native English Speakers" around
one baby (FAQ text) with at least one - JRS - positioning
himself nearly as God and the last keeper of the True English
(to my endless amusement btw).

Yes, we have all read your assertions that your English is faultless, and
your giving advice to others on the subject. But we have also observed
that a significant proportion of the 'sentences' you write are not. You
may be deluded enough to be amused by the notion that your English is
poor, but the bottom line is that it is very poor.

Yet all together they produced the most obscure chunk of a
technical text one could imagine.

A prefect example of what I am talking about.

Moreover and for even more fun they are now
insisting that there is some hidden clarity in this text
- one just need to read it "with a proper mindset".

And another.

Again quoting http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FA****RY> in your post lets the FAQ robot
collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."

This sentence
1) doesn't specify in what part of the post the marker should be
placed: in the subject line

The Subject header is not "in your post" as it is a header for the post,
and no more in the post than the Message-ID, References, Content-Typ,
Date, Lines, User-Agent, Path or From headers. It really should not be
necessary to be pointing this out to anyone who uses Usenet.

or in the body or reduplicated in both
parts.

The implication of the following request that the <FA****RY> should not
be laterally repeated in follow-ups is irreconcilable with the notion of
putting it in the Subject header. Rational individuals will not employ an
interpretation when the consequences of that interpretation cannot be
achieved.

2) doesn't specify if the marker should be used as explicitly
spelled thus as a single marker; or does it presume using
it tag-like so with opening <F...> tag and closing </F...>
tag with the relevant content inside these tags.

It is not necessary to specify something that is not important.
Reasonable people will manage to employ indicator sensibly (particularly
as they may choose not to get involved until they have seen some examples
of what others do).

No one - just like me - ever knew what a hey did the unknown dislexer
mean while writing it, so anyone was going by her own preferred
reading. By going from the most recent requests back to past:

How many examples of people foolishly putting the indicator in the
Subject header pre-date your fist example of that folly?

I may keep going to the past months to get even more random usages.
So far no one of them was declined for "non-appropriate <FA****RY>
formatting".

But it has been pointed out to some that they should not put the
indicator in the Subject header.

The first precedent over all these years was created only
now, for my particular FAQ proposal.

It has never has been acceptable to change the Subject header, and if you
look at those posts you will so that they have not been changed, and so
every one violates the stated requirement not to repeat the indicator
literally in follow-ups. And the fault here likes exclusively with the
individual who made it impossible for the follow-ups to obscure the
indicator by erroneously putting it in the Subject header.

As interesting as it is by itself, I don't care to re-post
with any reasonable formatting. But first get my sh** on
your bullsh**:

You are degenerating to gibberish again.

1) For all future potential posters it will be interesting to
know if and why among all possible interpretations of FAQ 5.1
only <FA****RY>Subject</FA****RY> is not acceptable

It is not acceptable because you cannot both not change the Subject
header in the follow-ups and change the Subject header in the follow-up
in order not the repeated the literal indicator.

(while <FA****RY>Subject is fine).

Who said that was fine, it still cannot be reconciled with not changing
the Subject header when the subject has not changed.

Moreover it is not acceptable by some
weather conditions I guess and not simply as such. See for instance
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/83167d13ea90ce98
and the like

2) Even more useful would be to join all language capabilities
of involved people - however limited they are - and try to
translate FAQ 5.1 from the current Pigeon English to something
not to say perfect but at least descent. That would eliminate the
funny threads like this one in the future.

Your acquiring a facility for reasoned thought would do more to prevent
threads like this in the future, but that is too much to expect.

Richard.

 

[VK]

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1

Did someone mention pigeon English recently?

Yes, it was me. You are making a very common mistake by placing the
equality sign between
"grammatically/stylistically perfect text" == "perfect text".
Such equation may be applicable for some poetry reading, but totally
wrong for any kind of formal specifications. In the latter case the
text may be - not to say have to - as ugly as sin: as long as it
allows only one algorithmic interpretation. And the opposite: the text
may have the beauty of Shakespeare with the Oxford's grammar, but as
soon as it allows any non-spelled algorithmic variations - as soon as
that its place becomes in the trash can. While saying "pigeon English"
I meant the application to a technical text.

How do you "enclose" something in a single tag?

Oh, the beloved hop goblin of "(X)HTML semantic" trolls.
I forgot that there is not "<some> tag" as an entity. There are
"opening <some> tag" and "closing </some> tag". That forms "content
enclosed by opening <some> tag and closing </some> tag". This is
obviously not equal to HTML "some element" and neither of above is
equal to "some DOM node". With written English still missing
unambigous notation for all of these entities - and with posters
traditionally writing short in vainful hope to the common sense of
readers - with all that it leaves an endless source for the
"semantical" trolling. When I get really bored I'm going to ciwas or
ciwah to read some posts like
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/msg/61ca056d35628942
However sorry I feel for the next victim, I don't participate as it is
hopeless. Moreover I'm not some Usenet Robin Hood for doing that

To cut the deal short:
"...enclose the relevant part of the post by opening <FAQ***RY> and

Gibberish.

Please elaborate on that. The purpose of this clarification is to
explain that the posts like
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/375105828ebfcc5e
or
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/b8a3863e3c218aca
are still valid though unusual FAQ***RY request forms.

see above

The case of tag(s) is not important.

If the case is not important what is the point of saying so?

Because it is not clear - and it was aked before - if <FAQ***RY> and
<faq***ry> are both acceptable. If they are both acceptable and even
<FaQ***rY> goes as well then _say_ it. Again you and Randy are
demonstating a mishmash of "what was in my head" and "what did I
write". If one had something in her head while writing a text but she
didn't actually write that: then she cannot expect that future readers
will still get the omitted parts from some "mental aura" surrounding
the text.

Specially for Randy who often accuses me to attribute to him something
he did not say:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/978821aea8385568
"I don't care how you format the request. I really don't as long as it
contains the character sequence (in any case you care for, even
FaQeN*Ry,) FAQ***RY."

Now looking at http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FAQ***RY> in your post lets the FAQ robot
collect the messages for easy review and inclusion. A Draft Proposal
for the FAQ is requested and appreciated.
The <FAQENTRY> should not be used in posts except in conjunction with
a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It should also not be literally
quoted in replies, instead it should be partly obscured as, e.g.
<FAQ**TRY> or similar."

Given an internity to analize this text it is still impossible to
decide if <faq***ry> in lower case - or case mishmash - would be
acceptable. That is a perfect sample of W3C approach: "whatever I was
thinking while writing it - it means that. If you are in doubts then
ask me what side thoughts did I have while writing it. I may answer in
a few months if you so stupid to be unable to read my mind remotely."

It is not acceptable Usenet practice to change the Subject header of a
thread when the subject has not changed, and generally unwelcome even if
the subject has changed.

From what best practice this statement is coming from? Not from mine

I'm affraid and not from anyone I got aware of during the long time I
was using the Usenet. It is a shaky ground though because Usenet is
not an "in-company" correspondence to be regulated by some signed and
sealed instructions. It is traditions based, and as such the most
complete and unambiguous exposition of these traditions IMO is the one
made by Charles H. Lindsey, the latest I-D is of March 2005. It is not
a low to obey of course, but it is much more autoritative than
unsustained trolling of recent legions of "Usenet true traditions'
keepers".
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01#section-3.2.1.1
<quote>
The Subject of the followup is, by default, taken from that of the
precursor, but users are able to override that default; indeed they
are to be encouraged to do so whenever appropriate in order to
avoid
long threads which have wandered far from the topic with which they
originated, but which still adhere to the original Subject.

"Body" would be an ambiguous term to apply to a Usenet post. They have
content preceded by Headers.

? The post - among other parts - has subject and body. Don't make
people laugh around by arguing on that.

FYI http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01#section-3.1.2

There is nothing wrong with the text as it is now.

As well as with W3C definition of whitespace, whitespace treatement,
namespaces and N other topics. This is why the current implementations
are looking just like "implementations" of the current FAQ instruction
linked below (see Addendum). W3C - because of these "nothing wrong
with the text" - is now sitting in the pile of sh** they were
carefully preparing 9 years in the row. clj FAQ is not some crucial
specification, but what's the point? "Write like a looser wherever
circumstances allow that?"



Addendum:

Why did W3C lost the 1999-2007 Cold Standards War
or How to avoid being a tech moron
Illustrated by comp.lang.javascript FAQ 5.1

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ5_1
"If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FA****RY> in your post lets the FAQ
robot
collect the messages for easy review and inclusion."

A few "implementation" samples back by dates w/o filtering:

<FA****RY> correction
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/bd60c5921b248934
(single <F...> mark in the subject line)


http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/77c1a4c1de15426f
<FA****RY> text </FA****RY>
(tag-like <F...> usage in the message body)


<FA****RY> corrections
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/333a0e91da811ce1
(single <F...> mark in the subject line)


<FA****RY> 4.41 correction
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/a7dd93894394e6ec
(single <F...> mark in the subject line)


$ <FA****RY>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/3aaa990244bf1226
(single <F...> mark in the subject line)


http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/fee27bd0d8696c6a
<FA****RY> text <FA****RY>
(tag-like <F...> usage in the message body)


http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/375105828ebfcc5e
<FA****RY> text
(single <F...> mark in the message body)


http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/b8a3863e3c218aca
<FA****RY> text
(single <F...> mark in the message body)


<FA****RY>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/ba223469afd5aadc
<FA****RY> text
(single <F...> mark in the subject line and
single <F...> mark in the message body)

 

[VK]

the Heading of a FAQ entry should indicate, as well as
possible within an appropriate length, what the entry is ABOUT; it
should be written so as to avoid misinterpretation.

Right, and it is already done:
"How do I modify the current browser window?"
browser window, word processor window => application window; as
opposed to document view or document content.

P.S. What is the difference between a fair contributor and a bored
troll?
A fair contributor sees an actual problem sustained by (mis)usage and
clarification requests samples. She brings this problem then to the
public attention.
A bored troll first constructs a problem under the aegis of "it never
happened but in the situation I just made up the problem I just made
up may happen". After that she requires to immediately resolve that
imaginary problem for that imaginary situation. As many extra
imaginary problems it will create - so the better for the thread
length so the better for the troll.