Lots of replies to read and digest ... thanks
Paul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:40 -0500, Matthew J. Roth wrote:
>> Tim wrote:
>> >
>> > I used to use the underscore, as it made sense (to me, and other
>> > programmers) as a substitute for a space. But there's two drawbacks:
>> >
>> > 1.
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:40 -0500, Matthew J. Roth wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> >
> > I used to use the underscore, as it made sense (to me, and other
> > programmers) as a substitute for a space. But there's two drawbacks:
> >
> > 1. Try explaining to the clueless what an underscore is, and how to
>
Tim wrote:
>
> I used to use the underscore, as it made sense (to me, and other
> programmers) as a substitute for a space. But there's two drawbacks:
>
> 1. Try explaining to the clueless what an underscore is, and how to
> type it. Try doing that again and again, and you get real sick of it.
Roberto Ragusa wrote:
>On 08/10/2011 08:37 AM, Tim wrote:
>
>> The shift key is a necessary evil, but it's beyond the comprehension
>of
>> some people. They don't understand how to type various symbols, or
>can
>> even recognise what some of them are. And just look at the emails
>> you'll see t
On 08/10/2011 08:37 AM, Tim wrote:
> The shift key is a necessary evil, but it's beyond the comprehension of
> some people. They don't understand how to type various symbols, or can
> even recognise what some of them are. And just look at the emails
> you'll see that are written in all lower cas
On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 13:53 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> Yours is a good rule, though I accept the shift key as a fact of life
> (this letter is evidence of that; otherwise, capitalization would be
> lost). I prefer underbar to hyphen for space as hyphen is a legit
> character, but I can se
On 8/9/2011 5:10 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
>> [...]
>> I wish the Chicago Manual of Style would weigh in on url name
>> conventions (not to mention typography in code). Not that I'd agree with
>> them, but it would be a good starting point.
>
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> [...]
> I wish the Chicago Manual of Style would weigh in on url name
> conventions (not to mention typography in code). Not that I'd agree with
> them, but it would be a good starting point.
One of the problems with style relative to ur
On 8/9/2011 6:17 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 18:15 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
>> assuming case-insensitivity
> [...]
>
>
>
> Once you've set yourself a rule, it's easier to be consistent throughout
> your site. Particularly if you put enough thought into it, ahead of
> time, that y
On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 18:15 -0700, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> assuming case-insensitivity
With the Apache web server, there is a "helpful" option that does work
around some spelling/typing errors, doing its best to try and do what
you meant, rather than what you actually did (changing case, and wo
On 8/8/2011 5:56 PM, Tim wrote:
>
> For anybody dabbling with scripting, I'd advise trying to find out about
> compatibilities (what's common, what's browser specific).
First, my thanks to everyone who offered help / suggestions.
After checking the add-ons suggestions, I came to the conclusion th
On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 19:01 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> The browsers are probably exposing some OS specific resources to
> Javascript. When the Javascript can't find something OS specific that
> it's looking for, it dies.
Hence why relying on it is nearly always a bad idea. Sure, there's som
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> Joel:
>
> [...]
> As I mentioned before, I sent the original email to see if I missed
> something obvious (and I think that paid off with your reply). My next
> step was to create a test html/javascript to duplicate by reduction of
> origi
Paul Allen Newell writes:
On 8/8/2011 4:12 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>
> Start digging in your Javascript code. The fact that Firefox is
> complaining about various Javascript functions is you big, honking clue.
>
Sam:
Thanks for reply.
As mentioned in a prior response to Andras, since WinXP
Joel:
Thanks for reply ... my answers(?) inline
On 8/8/2011 3:30 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>
>> Regarding the validator, your comment was/is understood before I wrote
>> my email ...
> Not quite, perhaps.
I am prepared to discover my understanding is not as good as I thought
it was (smile)
> Well,
Something is still
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> On 8/8/2011 12:42 AM, Andras Simon wrote:
>>
>> w3c's html validator is unlikely to signal problems with your
>> javascript (and no validator could if the problem is not a syntactic
>> one).
>
> Andras:
>
> Thanks for
On 8/8/2011 4:19 AM, Tim wrote:
> .
> As others have said, it's most likely a browser issue. JavaScript
> nearly always is (that, or an authoring error). There are news groups
> that deal with web authoring that might be your best bet, but put on
> your flameproof suit, they'll be far more critic
On 8/8/2011 4:12 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>
> Start digging in your Javascript code. The fact that Firefox is
> complaining about various Javascript functions is you big, honking clue.
>
Sam:
Thanks for reply.
As mentioned in a prior response to Andras, since WinXP and F14 are both
using Fir
On 8/8/2011 12:42 AM, Andras Simon wrote:
>
> w3c's html validator is unlikely to signal problems with your
> javascript (and no validator could if the problem is not a syntactic
> one).
Andras:
Thanks for reply.
Regarding the validator, your comment was/is understood before I wrote
my email .
On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 09:42 +0200, Andras Simon wrote:
> w3c's html validator is unlikely to signal problems with your
> javascript (and no validator could if the problem is not a syntactic
> one).
I'll go further and say that it won't. It's not just unlikely. It
looks at HTML not JavaScript.
Paul Allen Newell writes:
Community:
I have @330 htm pages that display wonderfully on Win XP under 4.01
Strict. No errors per w3C validator.
They won't even come close to proper display on Fedora 14. I can get
them validated successfully on F14 through w3c Validator, but I am
seeing error con
2011/8/8, Paul Allen Newell :
> Community:
>
> I have @330 htm pages that display wonderfully on Win XP under 4.01
> Strict. No errors per w3C validator.
>
> They won't even come close to proper display on Fedora 14. I can get
> them validated successfully on F14 through w3c Validator, but I am
> s
23 matches
Mail list logo
