Microsoft's JavaScript doc's newfangled problem

[Xah Lee]

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...html/1e9b3876-3d38-4fd8-8596-1bbfe2330aa9.asp

so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.

What the **** is going on?

And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).
Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work
in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.

And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.

«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»

WHAT THE **** is going on?

Answer: Motherfucking incompetence has come alive.

-------------
For a collection of essays on OpenSource documentation problems, see
bottom of:
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python.html

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[VK]

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

Their *JScript* documentation website - here's the keyword.

See:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp..._frm/thread/a4a1e9736dc8fa11/9f41a436cf9d8f44>

After the official breakup with IE for Mac OS:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...f55553d8da2/5dddd18b0949b792#5dddd18b0949b792>

JScript site is now only and exclusively for Internet Explorer 5.5 and
higher under Windows 98 SE and higher.

Any other visitors are out of support and interest of Microsoft - at
least in JScript domain. It is bad and rude, but it is and I'm affraid
it will be.

 

[Zif]

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...html/1e9b3876-3d38-4fd8-8596-1bbfe2330aa9.asp

so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.

What the **** is going on?

They are still using browser sniffing to determine what CSS to send to
the browser (IE 5.2 gets 'ie4.css', Safari gets 'n6.css'. Despite
that, they deliver js files with hundreds (maybe thousands) of lines
of code to browsers that can't execute them. Why bother sniffing?


They are still using '<!-- -->' inside their style and script elements
- ya gotta wonder who would visit a page about browser scripting using
a browser that doesn't know what a script element is (and is probably
more than 10 years old).


In a file called 'whidbey/script.js' they still use document.all
without any fall back to getElementById. Isn't whidbey the code name
for Visual Studio .NET 2005? Does it use document.all exclusively?


The frame pages generate lots of errors, including really basic things
like no doctype and unclosed tags in documents that pretend to be XML.


[...]

WHAT THE **** is going on?

Answer: Motherfucking incompetence has come alive.

Yes. Their documentation for the Office XML standard runs to 1,900
pages. The documentation of their streaming media server and media
player interfaces and formats was deemed utterly useless after being
given 18 months to deliver same.

What did you expect?


[...]

 

[BR]

In a file called 'whidbey/script.js' they still use document.all
without any fall back to getElementById. Isn't whidbey the code name
for Visual Studio .NET 2005?  Does it use document.all exclusively?

I'm wondering if they meant for that documentation to be read in VS 2005?

 

[Xah Lee]

What did you expect?

There are two interpretations to this Microsoft's JavaScript doc
problem:

1. They didn't do it intentionally.

2. They did it intentionally.

If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If
(2), they would be assholes, even though they have the right to do so.

On the other hand, in terms of documentation quality, technological
excellence, responsibility in software, Microsoft in the 21st century
is the holder of human progress when compared to the motherfucking Open
Sourcers lying thru their teeth fuckheads.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/


--------------------------------------
Xah Lee wrote:

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/scri...


so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.

What the **** is going on?

And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).

Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work

in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.

And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.

«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»

 

[VK]

There are two interpretations to this Microsoft's JavaScript doc
problem:

1. They didn't do it intentionally.

2. They did it intentionally.

If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If
(2), they would be assholes, even though they have the right to do so.

On the other hand, in terms of documentation quality, technological
excellence, responsibility in software, Microsoft in the 21st century
is the holder of human progress when compared to the motherfucking Open
Sourcers lying thru their teeth fuckheads.

Professional job - you've covered in your post all trolling issues and
pressed all spots on *both* sides. Now it's just the time to
collect the harvest in 5 (6?) newsgroups you've crossposting.

Say *this* the seed did not grow.

 

[axel]

If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If

Have you ever thought that your cross-postings are "incompetence
of inordinate order"?

Of course not since you are a troll.

Axel

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

On 30/12/2005 16:45, Xah Lee wrote:

[Follow-ups trimmed to c.i.w.a.stylesheets]

Ignored since I am referring to something that is on topic here.

The DOM Level 3 Events module has been a Working Group Note since
November 2003. This probably marks the end of its development.

I hope not, and I do not think so, taking both the provision

| This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or
| obsoleted by other documents at any time.

and the long development cycle of e.g. CSS3 modules into account
(I wonder why such basic and already implemented things need to
take that long to be specified :-()

For example, I would like to see more keyboard events than just
`keydown' and `keyup' to be covered by a Web standard specifying
with DOM events.


PointedEars

 

[Michael Winter]

Michael Winter wrote:
[snip]

The DOM Level 3 Events module has been a Working Group Note since
November 2003. This probably marks the end of its development.

I hope not, and I do not think so, taking both the provision

| This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or
| obsoleted by other documents at any time.

and the long development cycle [...]

Yes, I realise this, but it's process status is significant:

Working Group Note
A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working
Group to indicate that work has ended on a particular topic.
A Working Group MAY publish a Working Group Note with or
without its prior publication as a Working Draft.

-- 7.1.3 Maturity Levels When Ending Work on a Technical
Report, W3C Technical Report Development Process[1]

Furthermore:

Work on a technical report MAY cease at any time. When a
Working Group completes its work on a technical report, it
publishes it either as a Recommendation or a Working Group
Note. For example, a Working Group might publish several
Working Drafts of a requirements document, and then indicate
that it no longer plans to work on the requirements document by
publishing a Working Group Note.

Work MAY also cease because W3C determines that it cannot
productively carry the work any further. For instance, the
Director might close a Working Group, the participants might
lose interest in a technical report, or the ideas might be
subsumed by another technical report. If W3C decides to
discontinue work on a technical report before completion, the
technical report SHOULD be published as a Working Group Note.

Possible next steps:

- End state: A technical report MAY remain a Working Group
Note indefinitely
- Otherwise: A Working Group MAY resume work on the technical
report as a Working Draft

-- 7.5 Ending Work on a Technical Report, W3C
Technical Report Development Process[2]

The Working Draft Note status is an end to the development life-cycle.
It's not necessarily permanent, but if they're having difficulty moving
in the direction they'd like to go (virtual keys aren't
backwards-compatible, after all), they might have decided to drop it and
work on other modules that will have more chance of immediate success.

I searched the mailing list archives a while ago to see if the reasons
behind the decision were made public, but I didn't find anything and I'm
not so concerned so that I'm moved to inquire.

Mike


[1] <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q75>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#tr-end>