FAQ Changes

[Garrett Smith]

* #disableRightClick Fix grammar
* #trimString - String.prototype.trim
* #objectModels:

Removed the part about "nuclear power" and added a parenthetical:

| An object model may allow javascript to access a file system (Mac,
| Windows, and Linux are all scriptable).

Any objections before I update?

 

[David Mark]

* #disableRightClick Fix grammar
* #trimString - String.prototype.trim
* #objectModels:

Removed the part about "nuclear power" and added a parenthetical:

| An object model may allow javascript to access a file system (Mac,
| Windows, and Linux are all scriptable).

Any objections before I update?

Did you fix the bit about confirm messages? Last I checked, the
wording suggested made no sense. In short, there is no choice but the
OK/Cancel style, so the text presented should be an assertion (not a
question).

Examples:-

"Would you like us to charge your credit card?" (wrong)

"We will now charge your credit card." (right).

You could use the former in a desktop application as you can indicate
the buttons to present. Not so in a script, so questions are out.
Read those two aloud with OK/Cancel choices and it is clear which
makes sense.

 

[Garrett Smith]

Did you fix the bit about confirm messages? Last I checked, the
wording suggested made no sense. In short, there is no choice but the
OK/Cancel style, so the text presented should be an assertion (not a
question).

Sounds right. At least for English.
I changed the question to:

| FAQ Topic - I want to change the confirm box to say "yes"/"no", or to
| default to "cancel".

| The buttons on a confirm box cannot be changed, nor can a default
| button be specified.
|
| Change the question to a statement so that "OK" is suitable as the
| default response.
|
| Example:
| "Would you like us to charge your credit card?" (wrong)
| "We will now charge your credit card." (right).

Maybe SAM can tell us what it reads in French.

 

[David Mark]

Sounds right. At least for English.



I changed the question to:

| FAQ Topic - I want to change the confirm box to say "yes"/"no", or to
| default to "cancel".

| The buttons on a confirm box cannot be changed, nor can a default
| button be specified.
|
| Change the question to a statement so that "OK" is suitable as the
| default response.
|
| Example:
| "Would you like us to charge your credit card?" (wrong)
| "We will now charge your credit card." (right).

Maybe SAM can tell us what it reads in French.

And what would that matter? The French use the same words for Yes/
Okay and No/Cancel? Even if they did, it wouldn't change anything
except to give the French an interpretation that is logical by
coincidence.

 

[Garrett Smith]

[snip]

Maybe SAM can tell us what it reads in French.

And what would that matter? The French use the same words for Yes/
Okay and No/Cancel? Even if they did, it wouldn't change anything
except to give the French an interpretation that is logical by
coincidence.

I have no idea what the confirm buttons in French read.

If the above proposed text is acceptable, I'll include that in the FAQ
update.

 

[David Mark]

David Mark wrote:
* #disableRightClick Fix grammar
* #trimString - String.prototype.trim
* #objectModels:
Removed the part about "nuclear power" and added a parenthetical:
| An object model may allow javascript to access a file system (Mac,
| Windows, and Linux are all scriptable).
Any objections before I update?
Did you fix the bit about confirm messages?  Last I checked, the
wording suggested made no sense.  In short, there is no choice but the
OK/Cancel style, so the text presented should be an assertion (not a

[snip]

Maybe SAM can tell us what it reads in French.

And what would that matter?  The French use the same words for Yes/
Okay and No/Cancel?  Even if they did, it wouldn't change anything
except to give the French an interpretation that is logical by
coincidence.

I have no idea what the confirm buttons in French read.

Not oui and non I assume.

If the above proposed text is acceptable, I'll include that in the FAQ
update.

Anything that is not in the form of a question.

 

[Garrett Smith]

[snip]

If the above proposed text is acceptable, I'll include that in the FAQ
update.

Anything that is not in the form of a question.

Updated.

 

[David Mark]

David Mark wrote:
David Mark wrote:
On Dec 19, 1:34 am, Garrett Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

If the above proposed text is acceptable, I'll include that in the FAQ
update.

Anything that is not in the form of a question.

Updated.

Thanks.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:34:23, Garrett Smith

* #disableRightClick Fix grammar
* #trimString - String.prototype.trim
* #objectModels:

Removed the part about "nuclear power" and added a parenthetical:

| An object model may allow javascript to access a file system (Mac,
| Windows, and Linux are all scriptable).

Any objections before I update?

You should wait long enough for objections before you update - at least
a couple of working days. Some of us have other things to do apart from
looking for, reading, and thinking about your proposed changes.

You should say where the changes are, by section number and perhaps
paragraph count. Then those who later cannot find "nuclear" in the FAQ
can at least tell where it was.

In Section 2.3 the "nuclear" reference was (I hope) somewhat fanciful;
but it needs to be replaced with at least one other example of off-Web
use.


In the comp.lang.pascal.borland FAQ, changed sections are marked in the
left margin with vertical-bar characters; that is most helpful. HTML is
far richer than plain text, and can support various forms of such
marking, including being able to reveal the previous version of a
section (cf. my estr-xpl.htm).


Section 2.1 para 1 should include something like (5th Edition, December
2009). Consider :

"ECMAScript is the standardised form of JavaScript/JScript, widely used
for programming in web pages. The current standard is ECMA-262 5th
Edition December 2009. Current browsers support the 3rd edition, and
partially the 5th (no 4th)."






In 3.2, ECMAScript, "current" could precede "Official" (which is
superfluous).

In 3.2,
"ISO/IEC 16262: ISO Standard of ECMA-262 r3 with Corrections" should be
"ISO/IEC 16262: ISO version of ECMA-262 3rd Edition (with corrections)".

The FAQ should have an obvious link to ECMA 3rd Edition, until all
browsers in use support the 5th Edition.

 

[Garrett Smith]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:34:23, Garrett Smith



You should wait long enough for objections before you update - at least
a couple of working days. Some of us have other things to do apart from
looking for, reading, and thinking about your proposed changes.

I posted on the 18th and updated on the 20th.

You should say where the changes are, by section number and perhaps
paragraph count. Then those who later cannot find "nuclear" in the FAQ
can at least tell where it was.

#objectModels was a reference to the frag-id.

jibbering.com/faq/#objectModels

In Section 2.3 the "nuclear" reference was (I hope) somewhat fanciful;
but it needs to be replaced with at least one other example of off-Web
use.

Yes, see: "(Mac, Windows, and Linux are all scriptable)."

In the comp.lang.pascal.borland FAQ, changed sections are marked in the
left margin with vertical-bar characters; that is most helpful. HTML is
far richer than plain text, and can support various forms of such
marking, including being able to reveal the previous version of a
section (cf. my estr-xpl.htm).

We can discuss the changes here on the NG. I'll mention the fragment ids
and those can be followed right to the section.

Section 2.1 para 1

"What is ECMAScript?"

should include something like (5th Edition, December

2009). Consider :

"ECMAScript is the standardised form of JavaScript/JScript, widely used
for programming in web pages. The current standard is ECMA-262 5th
Edition December 2009. Current browsers support the 3rd edition, and
partially the 5th (no 4th)."

That seems to be a restatement of the information in:

| What does the future hold for ECMAScript?
|
| The 5th Edition of ECMAScript was approved on 2009-12-04. There is
| some support in implementations released before approval date (JScript
| 5.8, JavaScript 1.8, JavaScriptCore).
| http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm