Richard Cornford wrote, amongst other things:
A basic idea expressed in words could only be subject to a consideration
of the worth of the idea, but expressed in code it becomes more concrete
and so subject to technical correction.
A matter of perspective. I would imagine that an idea is subject to
correction regardless of how it is expressed. Applying differing
standards to differing forms of expression is a personal choice, and it
would be wasted effort to assail such a choice.
I will say that whether words or code, if an expression is very clearly
a fragment then it is also clear that it is not intended to work as-is,
and I at least would think that corrections to make it less of a
fragment (as opposed corrections to the idea that the fragment
illustrates) on the basis that as-is it will not work, are also wasted
effort.
But then again, so is justifying oneself. Since I have no desire to try
to change your mind regarding any of this, I'll leave it at that.
The smaller the fragment the fewer the opportunities for errors. Four
tags, two errors resulting in invalid mark-up, not an encouraging ratio.
See above. The degree to which the fragment is or is not fragmentary is
irrelevant when it is clearly intended as a fragment.
So does this mean that you expect to be able to post any old nonsense in
response to questions here and consider anyone taking you seriously as
being at fault for taking you seriously?
Yes and no. Every person is at fault for what they choose or choose not
to do. Every person is responsible for his own actions, and I would no
more consider myself responsible for the consequences of someone
failing to observe what I have made clear than I would for the homeless
man down the road responsibly spending the dollar I have given him.
That said, of course it is hoped that one would make an effort to be
honest and correct, regardless of the forum or medium, and I certainly
do. If I have doubts about whether my code will work, I test it first,
and/or express those doubts in the post so that the reader may be
forewarned. Of course I make mistakes, but humans do that. This was not
one of those mistakes-- responding to your reply was.
Are you saying that you hold other people responsible when you reuse
their code without evaluating it first? It's a rhetorical question. I
have no interest in the answer.
Perhaps a disclaimer at the bottom of every post:
*May not work in all implementations of all levels of the DOM on all
platforms, or of JavaScript or derivative languages, or all versions or
implementations of HTML or similar languages or other any other
document type. The Author is not responsible for damages resulting from
use of the information contained herein, including but not limited to
loss of time, loss of data, and loss of potential income. The
information contained herein is provided as-is, for educational
purposes only, without warranty, express or implied, especially but not
exclusively with regard to useability or merchantability. Some
jurisdictions do not allow implied warranties to be disclaimed, so this
clause may not apply to you. The reader is responsibile for all
consequences of reading this article or post, and for the use or
failure to use the information contained hereing.
The nature of your 'basic idea' was that
.... placing the script at the bottom of the document would allow it to
be executed in the order desired, which is correct. Lo, it works.
I will not make any further attempt to explain myself. If you have
questions or concerns, feel free to approach me with them as questions
or concerns, but a combative approach is unlikely to achieve the
desired result.
Such pendantry has very little innate value in most forums or media.
