Event Handling via CSS

[Ricardo]

Where can you find what?  If you are referring to My Library, then you
are beyond help.  Ask your fellow jQuery mavens.  God knows they've
seen it.  And it is obviously for (X)HTML.

I see, it's so good that you don't want people to see it.

Yes, you did.  Though it is clear that you don't really know what you
are saying.

http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/msg/71bb5cd00535689f

I'm not actually a native English speaker, but despite that the
meaning of "being invalid" is quite clear to me, and I don't see a
single word of encouragement in that message.

XHTML served as HTML is not "current web technology", nor is jQuery
designed in any way to work with such a scheme.  As with most of it,
it works by coincidence in some agents and configurations.

What is 'current web technology' by your understanding then? I don't
see any major website running on anything else, please enlighten me.

 

[David Mark]

I see, it's so good that you don't want people to see it.

I certainly don't want anybody who can't find it on their own to
bother me about it.

See my posts regarding it in the archive. I gave you the name.

I'm not actually a native English speaker, but despite that the
meaning of "being invalid" is quite clear to me, and I don't see a
single word of encouragement in that message.

You wrote a wrong answer and it indicates that you are vaguely aware
of an issue, but regard it as browser magic, rather than a flaw in
jQuery. It is a common situation as jQuery creates lots of cross-
browser complications, which are invariably blamed on defective
browsers. This sort of thinking can be found in the forums, the
documentation, blog entries, books, etc. It keeps the myth of
jQuery's "simplification" alive.

See the - attr - method (something you should have done a long time
ago.) Then realize that jQuery did not "fix" Javascript and it does
not simplify cross-browser scripting. You are ten years behind the
rest of the world and won't move forward until you realize these
facts.

What is 'current web technology' by your understanding then? I don't
see any major website running on anything else, please enlighten me.

I'm not sure what you consider a "major website", but I will concede
that many Websites, of all shapes and sizes, are serving XHTML
(usually of the transitional and invalid variety) as HTML, pinning all
of their cross-browser hopes on error correction. They do this
because documents are copied from one hopelessly backwards developer
to the next.

Transitional XHTML was popular around the turn of the century as
developers thought it would be more "standard" or "future-proof" to
move to XHTML (and strict XHTML was too confining to transition
existing tag soup sites.) Ten years later, long after XHTML was
declared DOA for the Web, people are using it for new sites and
including scripts that could never hope to work with properly served
XHTML. In other words, if the XHTML future ever comes, all of their
documents will be DOA.

You indicated earlier that you thought the widespread adoption of
jQuery was an indication of its usefulness, as if you couldn't believe
the majority of Web developers are incompetent and prone to very bad
decisions. Do you feel the same way about the widespread adoption of
faux XHTML?

 

[Ricardo]

I certainly don't want anybody who can't find it on their own to
bother me about it.

See my posts regarding it in the archive. I gave you the name.

Don't be shy, please post a link to Your Library whenever someone is
interested, so we can learn from the best.

Better yet if would open-source it so that we can start moving towards
better reliable cross-browser Javascript all around. I bet it's not
that much of a sales hit, is it? You'd benefit much more from the
attention attracted than you'd ever get any other way. It's already
listed as open-source/freeware on a lot of google results

I'm not sure what you consider a "major website", but I will concede
that many Websites, of all shapes and sizes, are serving XHTML
(usually of the transitional and invalid variety) as HTML, pinning all
of their cross-browser hopes on error correction.  They do this
because documents are copied from one hopelessly backwards developer
to the next.

So you finally admit that XHTML is only part of the future, "if it
ever comes". Good. Maybe now you can accept that jQuery is useful for
today's web, "broken" as it is. It's moving towards being future-proof
and environment-independent as I see and it will probably reach that
state, if it does, before Your Library reaches 100 users.

Transitional XHTML was popular around the turn of the century as
developers thought it would be more "standard" or "future-proof" to
move to XHTML (and strict XHTML was too confining to transition
existing tag soup sites.)  Ten years later, long after XHTML was
declared DOA for the Web, people are using it for new sites and
including scripts that could never hope to work with properly served
XHTML.  In other words, if the XHTML future ever comes, all of their
documents will be DOA.

Not really. Pages coded with progressive enhancement will still work,
and there's quite a bit of valid XHTML 1.0 Strict around. Any average
professional will write valid XHTML.

You indicated earlier that you thought the widespread adoption of
jQuery was an indication of its usefulness, as if you couldn't believe
the majority of Web developers are incompetent and prone to very bad
decisions.  Do you feel the same way about the widespread adoption of
faux XHTML?

Do you mean that XHTML 1.0 is crap? What would be your suggestion? And
it's not a fair comparison, jQuery is completely "valid" javascript
(whatever that means). I have never seen it throw an exception without
user/third-party error being the cause in supported browsers. Writing
invalid XHTML is a completely different matter.

Well done, no swearing this time. Here, take a cookie.

 

[Gregor Kofler]

Ricardo meinte:

Don't be shy, please post a link to Your Library whenever someone is
interested, so we can learn from the best.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=david+mark+my+library

But then: Since you are unable to enter simple search terms into
<your_favourite_search_engine>, I'm pretty sure that you're lacking any
competence to assess the code quality David's (or any other JS) library.

Gregor

 

[Matthias Reuter]

Don't be shy, please post a link to Your Library whenever someone is
interested, so we can learn from the best.

I think you did not catch the name of David's library. It's called "My
Library". So searching for "My Library" and "David Mark" might help.

Matt

 

[David Mark]

Don't be shy, please post a link to Your Library whenever someone is
interested, so we can learn from the best.

Um, see above.

Better yet if would open-source it so that we can start moving towards
better reliable cross-browser Javascript all around. I bet it's not

Many are already there (and have been there for years), but you can't
bottle this stuff for general use. You've really got no choice but to
read and learn. Javascript is not a Nintendo game.

that much of a sales hit, is it? You'd benefit much more from the
attention attracted than you'd ever get any other way. It's already
listed as open-source/freeware on a lot of google results

What are you talking about? For one, it isn't for sale at this time
(disregard the note in the source.) For two, I have long since
renounced the project as a waste of time. And I thought you couldn't
find it. (?)

So you finally admit that XHTML is only part of the future, "if it
ever comes". Good. Maybe now you can accept that jQuery is useful for
today's web, "broken" as it is.

Once again, you have it backwards. The Web is broken (beyond belief)
because of junk like jQuery. Why do you think it "supports" Opera 9,
but not 8? It is a hindrance, not a helper. It can turn the simplest
operation into a nightmare, even if you run an IE-only Intranet. (!)
Meanwhile, real cross-browser scripts keep rolling along, as they have
since the turn of the century.

It's moving towards being future-proof
and environment-independent as I see and it will probably reach that
state, if it does, before Your Library reaches 100 users.

What is moving towards future-proof and environment-independent?
jQuery? They can't even figure out IE6, ten years after it was
released. I'd say it is not moving at all and is hemmed in by its
inherently flawed design anyway.

As for your puerile swipe at my library, I suggest you do your
homework on the project. And why do the "major library" zealots
always want to change the subject? Can't you defend the criticisms
leveled at *your* library? In your case, I suppose that goes without
saying.

Not really. Pages coded with progressive enhancement will still work,

jQuery does not enable progressive enhancement in any sense. On the
contrary, it makes it virtually impossible.

and there's quite a bit of valid XHTML 1.0 Strict around. Any average
professional will write valid XHTML.

Huh? There is not a lot of valid XHTML around and only a rube would
waste time with XHTML at this point (at least on the Web.)

Do you mean that XHTML 1.0 is crap? What would be your suggestion? And

I mean serving XHTML as HTML is stupid.

it's not a fair comparison, jQuery is completely "valid" javascript
(whatever that means).

You said it. I don't know what it means either. Must be some
alternate definition of "valid" that means "very sloppy."

I have never seen it throw an exception without
user/third-party error being the cause in supported browsers.

Such empirical observations are worthless. And exceptions are just
the most visible way for it to fail (which it does in - for example -
various configurations of IE.)

Writing
invalid XHTML is a completely different matter.

Sure is! Won't do anything but display an error when served as XML
(as it should be.) Yet most transitional XHTML documents on the Web
*are* invalid and feature scripts that would never fly in XML parse
mode. Quite the contradiction if you think about it.

Well done, no swearing this time. Here, take a cookie.

Piss off.