Update to FAQ

G

Garrett Smith

I've uploaded the latest FAQ.

Changes include:
* How do I format a date
* Meta - main section
* <code> edits to "how do I get the value of a form control"

It would be useful to mention the intended readership for the FAQ in the
Meta section. The existing entry (below) does not.

| 1 Meta-FAQ meta-questions
|
| You are reading the comp.lang.javascript meta-FAQ, version 17. It is
| available on the web at http://jibbering.com/faq/ in HTML form.
|
| Each day, one section of the FAQ is posted for review and questions,
| and as a reminder that the FAQ is available.
|
| For additional explanation and detail relating to some aspects of the
| FAQ, please see the FAQ Notes. It has been provided separately to
| avoid increasing the size of the FAQ to a point where it would be
| unreasonable to post it to the group.
|
| Code examples in this document in the use JSDoc Toolkit comments.

Garrett
 
D

Dr J R Stockton

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:37:25, Garrett Smith
I've uploaded the latest FAQ.

AISB the group has agreed that the FAQ shall be referred to by its full
URL, <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>. Your sig needs
updating.

"Version 18, Updated June 21, 2009" is available at that URL.

However, <http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html> gives "Version 17,
Updated June 14, 2009".

To avoid confusion, please give version number and date when announcing
uploads; and please also remove all old versions from all URLs that have
previously been used or announced.

If old versions are to be retained, they should be in another directory
and named by date.

| Code examples in this document in the use JSDoc Toolkit comments.

Please read that line, more carefully.
 
T

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Dr said:
Garrett Smith posted:

AISB the group has agreed that the FAQ shall be referred to by its full
URL, <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.

It hasn't. In fact, it is rather a step in the wrong direction to include
the file name of the index document in an URI [1], and prepending `www.' is
an obsolete practice that was only required before the advent of standard
port number assignments (cf. <http://iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>;
incidentally, they, too, have recognized after years of 404s that it is
incredibly silly to be available on the Web only under
<http://www.iana.org/>.) Let's not repeat their mistake.

Your sig needs updating.

It doesn't.


PointedEars
 
G

Garrett Smith

Dr said:
In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:37:25, Garrett Smith


AISB the group has agreed that the FAQ shall be referred to by its full
URL, <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>. Your sig needs
updating.

It does not. There are no need for those extraneous bytes.
"Version 18, Updated June 21, 2009" is available at that URL.

However, <http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html> gives "Version 17,
Updated June 14, 2009".

The browser has a cached version. Try shift + reload or ctrl + F5.
To avoid confusion, please give version number and date when announcing
uploads; and please also remove all old versions from all URLs that have
previously been used or announced.
OK.

If old versions are to be retained, they should be in another directory
and named by date.
That sounds like a good idea.
Please read that line, more carefully.
Changed to:
Code examples in this FAQ in the use JSDoc Toolkit comments.

Garrett
 
J

John G Harris

and prepending `www.' is
an obsolete practice that was only required before the advent of standard
port number assignments
<snip>

MIT disagrees with you :

<http://web.mit.edu/>
<http://hrweb.mit.edu/>
<http://alum.mit.edu/>

About 10 years ago www.mit.edu got you the students' web site,
www1.mit.edu got you the university site. (And the port number was
indicated by :8080).

You can only leave out the prefix if you want the default site, and the
equipment allows it.

John
 
D

Dr J R Stockton

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:47:12, Garrett Smith
It does not. There are no need for those extraneous bytes.

They are necessary in order that the URL shall look complete; it is
incorrect to take a purely mechanical attitude[1].

The browser has a cached version. Try shift + reload or ctrl + F5.

No; it seems really there. It's also there using two other browsers
that I'm fairly sure have not been used for FAQ reading since before
June 14th, and I've used shift-reload.

Inserting the "www." gets the new version (2009-06-21) - this showing
that TL's argument about "www." being superfluous is not real-world
based. Unsurprisingly.


Changed to:
Code examples in this FAQ in the use JSDoc Toolkit comments.

The improvement is not the one that I was hoping for. SAM writes better
English than you do (though not always); though it may cost more effort.
Read even more carefully.


[1] Especially when the machinery does not work as expected.
 
G

Garrett Smith

Dr said:
In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:47:12, Garrett Smith
It does not. There are no need for those extraneous bytes.

They are necessary in order that the URL shall look complete; it is
incorrect to take a purely mechanical attitude[1].

A url does *not* need a file or extention to look complete. At least not
to millions. Take a look at a google search result and you will notice
that most sites do not have a file+extension.

Also take example.com:-
http://example.net/

Seems to return the same content as:
http://example.net/index.html

Also:-
http://www.w3.org/TR/

- great URI, and returns the content expected without revealing any of
the underlying technology used to produce it.

These have been posted to the group before, if you haven't seen:

http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/uri-choose
No; it seems really there. It's also there using two other browsers
that I'm fairly sure have not been used for FAQ reading since before
June 14th, and I've used shift-reload.

Server caching.

The FAQ under "www." was displayed as on older version on my FF.
shift+reload got me the latest.

Then later, got an older version, but the other "no www." got the
latest, but after a shift-reload, it resulted in the June 14 copy.
Inserting the "www." gets the new version (2009-06-21) - this showing
that TL's argument about "www." being superfluous is not real-world
based. Unsurprisingly.

The "www" subdomain is an alias. It seems unrelated to the server
caching issue.

There are three possible problems.
1) Server caching
2) Your browser cache
3) Both.

Sometimes after updating the file, a cached version will be sent.

I've previously had problems with faq.css. I tried deleting the file,
requesting it, then uploading. This seemed to work.

And faq.css seems to have the old border on the root element. It is not
the latest.

I don't know what causes this. Anyone else know?

Is there a good reason for using it for links to the FAQ?
The improvement is not the one that I was hoping for. SAM writes better

Fixed. I was looking for a technical error and completely missed the
grammar mistake. I got it now.

Garrett
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,906
Latest member
SkinfixSkintag

Latest Threads

Top