By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
439,993 Members | 1,883 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 439,993 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

prototype.js with the AJAX functionality only

P: n/a
Hello !

Does anybody have cutted version of prototype.js with
the AJAX functionality only?
>70kb js code for a web site is still a huge burden.
I am a new in prototype.js topic, so I think this task
should be done by other developers.

Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?

Thanks

Jan 30 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
23 Replies


P: n/a
Da********@gmail.com wrote:
Does anybody have cutted version of prototype.js with
the AJAX functionality only?

70kb js code for a web site is still a huge burden.
I am a new in prototype.js topic, so I think this task
should be done by other developers.

Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?
Prototype.js is almost completely interdependent. All of the higher level
facilities it provides rely 100% on the bulk of the remaining code. This
is one of the most fundamental of the design flaws in Prototype.js, and
is so ingrained that it can never now be rectified.

Richard.

Jan 30 '07 #2

P: n/a
On Jan 30, 3:43 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Dautkha...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anybody have cutted version of prototype.js with
the AJAX functionality only?
70kb js code for a web site is still a huge burden.
I am a new in prototype.js topic, so I think this task
should be done by other developers.
If you add a few semicolons and gzip I think the file is less than 16
kb. That is not an argument to use Prototype.js at all. I'm just
saying. There is something out there called "Prototype light" that
removes a lot of less commonly used features. I imagine the Ajax part
must have stated in this smaller version. However I don't think this
would be any better to use as Prototype is full of problems.

Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?

Prototype.js is almost completely interdependent. All of the higher level
facilities it provides rely 100% on the bulk of the remaining code. This
is one of the most fundamental of the design flaws in Prototype.js, and
is so ingrained that it can never now be rectified.
Why could it not be rectified? I think they could quite easily. The
library could be written so that it has the same API and that none of
the internals of the library depends on the library's sugar. The fact
that they don't do this is one sign of the library's weakness. The
Prototype community has no interest in the benefits of modularity or
plenty of other good programming practices, however. So if by
"ingrained" you mean culturally ingrained then I think you are
probably right.

Peter

Jan 31 '07 #3

P: n/a
On Jan 30, 9:28 pm, Dautkha...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello !

Does anybody have cutted version of prototype.js with
the AJAX functionality only?
70kb js code for a web site is still a huge burden.
I think it can be reduced in size to around 30KB quite easily. But I
wouldn't recommend Prototype if all you want is AJAX functionality.
>
I am a new in prototype.js topic, so I think this task
should be done by other developers.
This isn't really the place to discuss Prototype.js unless you want to
discuss some particular aspect of it in regard to javascript in
general.
>
Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?
You'd better talk to the Prototype community about that, they have
their own "core" news group. You chances of getting them to do that
are very slim, though they may point you toward someone else who may
have done it.

The following AJAX libraries that are as, or more, functional as well
as smaller and use normal javascript coding style:

YAHOO! UI
<URL: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/docs/...l.Connect.html >

AjaxToolbox
<URL: http://www.ajaxtoolbox.com/ >

FORK
<URL: http://www.forkjavascript.org/ajax/docs >
--
Rob

Jan 31 '07 #4

P: n/a
On 31 ., 09:42, "RobG" <r...@iinet.net.auwrote:
>
YAHOO! UI
<URL:http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/docs/YAHOO.util.Connect.html>
I tested three ajax-support libraries today, including prototype.
FORK not even tested since it has no functionality that I'll possibly
require in the future.
I choose yui. It'll be used in productional. It has only 10kb
minimized js code
for ajax support.

Thanks, Rob and all

Jan 31 '07 #5

P: n/a
On 31 ., 09:42, "RobG" <r...@iinet.net.auwrote:
This isn't really the place to discuss Prototype.js unless you want to
discuss some particular aspect of it in regard to javascript in
general.
Anyway, I love some concepts of prototype.js like a $() and $F()
shortcuts. I have to integrate into my project.

Jan 31 '07 #6

P: n/a
Peter Michaux wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
<snip>
>Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?

Prototype.js is almost completely interdependent. All of the
higher level facilities it provides rely 100% on the bulk of
the remaining code. This is one of the most fundamental of
the design flaws in Prototype.js, and is so ingrained that it
can never now be rectified.

Why could it not be rectified? I think they could quite
easily. The library could be written so that it has the
same API and that none of the internals of the library
depends on the library's sugar.
<snip>

Try it and find out for yourself. However, remember that the full
contract for the API has never been spelled out in ECMAScript terms so
reproducing the API would require reproducing _everything_ that the API
currently does (quirk for consequential quirk). Baring in mind that its
own authors don't fully understand what they have written.

However, I would include the API itself as part of library's inherent
design flaws, so reproducing it does not seem like a worthwhile exercise.

Richard.

Feb 3 '07 #7

P: n/a
On Feb 3, 5:43 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
<snip>
Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?
Prototype.js is almost completely interdependent. All of the
higher level facilities it provides rely 100% on the bulk of
the remaining code. This is one of the most fundamental of
the design flaws in Prototype.js, and is so ingrained that it
can never now be rectified.
Why could it not be rectified? I think they could quite
easily. The library could be written so that it has the
same API and that none of the internals of the library
depends on the library's sugar.

<snip>

Try it and find out for yourself. However, remember that the full
contract for the API has never been spelled out in ECMAScript terms so
reproducing the API would require reproducing _everything_ that the API
currently does (quirk for consequential quirk).
Ok. If you add that requirement then it is a different story, more
work and more pointless. I thought part of the deal would be to
implement the current API how they authors think it works.
Modularization of the current Prototype library could still be done by
in-lining code for calls to other parts of the library but the code
would expand at least some.
Baring in mind that its
own authors don't fully understand what they have written.
What makes you think that? (I'm not disagreeing.)
However, I would include the API itself as part of library's inherent
design flaws, so reproducing it does not seem like a worthwhile exercise.
Agreed.

Peter

Feb 3 '07 #8

P: n/a
Peter Michaux said the following on 2/3/2007 12:23 PM:
On Feb 3, 5:43 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>Baring in mind that its
own authors don't fully understand what they have written.

What makes you think that? (I'm not disagreeing.)
Considering most of the flaws and problems with prototype.js doesn't
that question seem to answer itself? If the authors truly understood
what they had written - and the impacts of it - then it wouldn't suffer
most of the problems it suffers from.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Feb 3 '07 #9

P: n/a
On Feb 3, 11:04 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
Peter Michaux said the following on 2/3/2007 12:23 PM:
On Feb 3, 5:43 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>
Baring in mind that its
own authors don't fully understand what they have written.
What makes you think that? (I'm not disagreeing.)

Considering most of the flaws and problems with prototype.js doesn't
that question seem to answer itself? If the authors truly understood
what they had written - and the impacts of it - then it wouldn't suffer
most of the problems it suffers from.
I am guilty of this also but whenever Prototype is criticized would be
a good idea to have a concrete reason for the criticism for the given
context. This would mean knowing how the current Prototype code works.
It seems the Prototype group puts in a huge struggle to try to change
anything in that code. It could be too many cooks in the kitchen now
and they can't agree on anything. Moving mountains is tricky too. I
don't know what's going on in that group and why they can't get a few
thousand lines of code together. I was just curious which details
Richard thinks are particularly offensive. Maybe the faq should have
an up-to-date entry like Matt's page about why Prototype is a bad idea
to use. It comes up here so often and the faq is the official
response.

Peter

Feb 3 '07 #10

P: n/a
Peter Michaux wrote:
<snip>
... . I was just curious which details
Richard thinks are particularly offensive.
<snip>

If you wanted to know that why didn't you just ask the direct question?

Richard.
Feb 4 '07 #11

P: n/a
On Feb 4, 3:02 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Peter Michaux wrote:

<snip>... . I was just curious which details
Richard thinks are particularly offensive.

<snip>

If you wanted to know that why didn't you just ask the direct question?
I thought my question was clear. I guess I will never know now.

Peter

Feb 5 '07 #12

P: n/a
Peter Michaux wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:02 pm, Richard Cornford wrote:
>Peter Michaux wrote:

<snip>... . I was just curious which details
>>Richard thinks are particularly offensive.

<snip>

If you wanted to know that why didn't you just ask the direct
question?

I thought my question was clear. I guess I will never know now.
Are you referring to your "What makes you think that?" question in
response to my "don't fully understand what they have written"? I had
assumed that was rhetorical as I have pointed out that Prototype.js is
not ECMAScritp compliant any more often enough, and that is not something
that would be created by anyone who knew what they were doing.

However, that question still asked nothing of particular offences.

Richard.

Feb 5 '07 #13

P: n/a
Peter Michaux said the following on 2/3/2007 6:23 PM:
On Feb 3, 11:04 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>Peter Michaux said the following on 2/3/2007 12:23 PM:
>>On Feb 3, 5:43 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>>>Baring in mind that its
own authors don't fully understand what they have written.
What makes you think that? (I'm not disagreeing.)
Considering most of the flaws and problems with prototype.js doesn't
that question seem to answer itself? If the authors truly understood
what they had written - and the impacts of it - then it wouldn't suffer
most of the problems it suffers from.

I am guilty of this also but whenever Prototype is criticized would be
a good idea to have a concrete reason for the criticism for the given
context.
The list of criticisms/problems with Prototype is very extensive and a
search of the archives can find most of them. The most glaring, to me,
is the repeated calls to a function that isn't needed ($). It goes from
there but it is a never ending list, it seems.
This would mean knowing how the current Prototype code works.
Or, seeing enough to know its bad code without spending the time to know
"how it works". When you see enough flaws in the design there isn't much
desire to learn more about it.

It seems the Prototype group puts in a huge struggle to try to change
anything in that code. It could be too many cooks in the kitchen now
and they can't agree on anything. Moving mountains is tricky too. I
don't know what's going on in that group and why they can't get a few
thousand lines of code together. I was just curious which details
Richard thinks are particularly offensive. Maybe the faq should have
an up-to-date entry like Matt's page about why Prototype is a bad idea
to use. It comes up here so often and the faq is the official
response.
The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype has
been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
exhaustive and more than I care to do :)
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Feb 6 '07 #14

P: n/a
On Feb 7, 3:26 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
Peter Michaux said the following on 2/3/2007 6:23 PM:
[...]
This would mean knowing how the current Prototype code works.

Or, seeing enough to know its bad code without spending the time to know
"how it works". When you see enough flaws in the design there isn't much
desire to learn more about it.
But that should prevent you from learning from it - its
getElementsByClassName uses XPath if available as an alternative to
the usual looping over the NodeList returned by getElementsByTagName.
It is very fast in browsers that support it, and therefore a useful
technique to learn about.
>
Maybe the faq should have
an up-to-date entry like Matt's page about why Prototype is a bad idea
to use. It comes up here so often and the faq is the official
response.

The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype has
been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
exhaustive and more than I care to do :)
An alternative is a general comment on the main good and bad aspects
of libraries. A suggested heading is:

"What javascript library or framework should I use?"
--
Rob

Feb 6 '07 #15

P: n/a
On Feb 6, 9:26 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype has
been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
exhaustive and more than I care to do :)
But Prototype is the library that comes up the most frequently making
it a good candidate for the FAQ. If there was a FAQ notes page about
libraries then many libraries would probably deserve treatment.

Peter

Feb 6 '07 #16

P: n/a
Peter Michaux said the following on 2/6/2007 6:40 PM:
On Feb 6, 9:26 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype has
been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
exhaustive and more than I care to do :)

But Prototype is the library that comes up the most frequently making
it a good candidate for the FAQ.
Right now it does. But, is that because it's the most used library or is
it the most used by people that can't figure out what it's doing wrong
so they post questions here about it instead of in the appropriate
support forum?

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Feb 8 '07 #17

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <EK********************@telcove.net>,
Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:13:45, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:
>Peter Michaux said the following on 2/6/2007 6:40 PM:
>On Feb 6, 9:26 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>>The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype
has
been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
exhaustive and more than I care to do :)
But Prototype is the library that comes up the most frequently
making
it a good candidate for the FAQ.

Right now it does. But, is that because it's the most used library or
is it the most used by people that can't figure out what it's doing
wrong so they post questions here about it instead of in the
appropriate support forum?

FAQ Section 4.n :
"I need to know about prototype.js"
It's for ... ; it's good/bad/indifferent ; the >appropriate support
forum is ...".

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
For news:borland.*, use their server newsgroups.borland.com ; but first read
Guidelines <URL:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.htmlff. with care.
Feb 8 '07 #18

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton said the following on 2/8/2007 5:37 PM:
In comp.lang.javascript message <EK********************@telcove.net>,
Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:13:45, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:
>Peter Michaux said the following on 2/6/2007 6:40 PM:
>>On Feb 6, 9:26 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:

The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype
has
been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
exhaustive and more than I care to do :)
But Prototype is the library that comes up the most frequently
making
it a good candidate for the FAQ.
Right now it does. But, is that because it's the most used library or
is it the most used by people that can't figure out what it's doing
wrong so they post questions here about it instead of in the
appropriate support forum?


FAQ Section 4.n :
"I need to know about prototype.js"
It's for ... ; it's good/bad/indifferent ; the >appropriate support
forum is ...".
And that still falls into the specific trap of listing certain
libraries. If you do one, you would need to do all that ever get asked
about and that's if you can find a support forum for it.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Feb 9 '07 #19

P: n/a
On Feb 9, 10:18 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
Dr J R Stockton said the following on 2/8/2007 5:37 PM:
In comp.lang.javascript message <EK6dnbe15KQbvFbY4p2...@telcove.net>,
Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:13:45, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.composted:
Peter Michaux said the following on 2/6/2007 6:40 PM:
On Feb 6, 9:26 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>>The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype
has
been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
exhaustive and more than I care to do :)
But Prototype is the library that comes up the most frequently
making
it a good candidate for the FAQ.
Right now it does. But, is that because it's the most used library or
is it the most used by people that can't figure out what it's doing
wrong so they post questions here about it instead of in the
appropriate support forum?
FAQ Section 4.n :
"I need to know about prototype.js"
It's for ... ; it's good/bad/indifferent ; the >appropriate support
forum is ...".

And that still falls into the specific trap of listing certain
libraries. If you do one, you would need to do all that ever get asked
about and that's if you can find a support forum for it.
It's the 'F' in FAQ. Currently Prototype is a frequently asked
question. If it stops being frequent in the future then the entry can
be removed from the FAQ. The FAQ hasn't always retained past entry.

My 2 cents.

Peter

Feb 9 '07 #20

P: n/a
Peter Michaux said the following on 2/9/2007 3:27 PM:
On Feb 9, 10:18 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>Dr J R Stockton said the following on 2/8/2007 5:37 PM:
>>In comp.lang.javascript message <EK6dnbe15KQbvFbY4p2...@telcove.net>,
Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:13:45, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.composted:
Peter Michaux said the following on 2/6/2007 6:40 PM:
On Feb 6, 9:26 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype
>has
>been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
>start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
>listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
>exhaustive and more than I care to do :)
But Prototype is the library that comes up the most frequently
making
it a good candidate for the FAQ.
Right now it does. But, is that because it's the most used library or
is it the most used by people that can't figure out what it's doing
wrong so they post questions here about it instead of in the
appropriate support forum?
FAQ Section 4.n :
"I need to know about prototype.js"
It's for ... ; it's good/bad/indifferent ; the >appropriate support
forum is ...".
And that still falls into the specific trap of listing certain
libraries. If you do one, you would need to do all that ever get asked
about and that's if you can find a support forum for it.

It's the 'F' in FAQ.
OK.
Currently Prototype is a frequently asked question.
A search of the archives comes up with 22 hits since November 30 and not
all 22 of those deal specifically with Prototype (one is the thread I
started about createTextNode and IE7 and it comes up in the search
because it got mentioned that Prototype.js uses eval on incoming script
blocks).

So, how often does something have to get asked to become "frequent"?
That is a ratio of about 1 every 3 days or so which is fairly frequent.
Dates are asked about almost as frequently yet the word Date appears
only once in the FAQ and that is in regards to Last Modified (which
never gets asked).
If it stops being frequent in the future then the entry can
be removed from the FAQ.
If I can ever manage to finish 10.0 then removal is simple as it doesn't
use a numbered system for the anchors. As it is now, removing an entry
is not as simple as it sounds.
The FAQ hasn't always retained past entry.
For at least 10 years it has. The numbered anchor system in use doesn't
lend itself to removing entries very easily. It is the sole reason I
went about trying to make 10.0 non-numbered.

If there is an entry wanted on Prototype.js then someone write a Draft
Proposal - complete - and post it. I don't agree with it but if it is
wanted then it can be added.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Feb 9 '07 #21

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <ZO********************@telcove.net>,
Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:18:02, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:
>Dr J R Stockton said the following on 2/8/2007 5:37 PM:
>In comp.lang.javascript message <EK********************@telcove.net>,
Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:13:45, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:
>>Peter Michaux said the following on 2/6/2007 6:40 PM:
On Feb 6, 9:26 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:

The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype
has
been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
exhaustive and more than I care to do :)
But Prototype is the library that comes up the most frequently
making
it a good candidate for the FAQ.
Right now it does. But, is that because it's the most used library or
is it the most used by people that can't figure out what it's doing
wrong so they post questions here about it instead of in the
appropriate support forum?
FAQ Section 4.n :
"I need to know about prototype.js"
It's for ... ; it's good/bad/indifferent ; the >appropriate support
forum is ...".

And that still falls into the specific trap of listing certain
libraries. If you do one, you would need to do all that ever get asked
about and that's if you can find a support forum for it.

No I don't; and you don't either. Evidently you do not understand how
to write a newsgroup FAQ; it's not there just to show how clever the
author has been.

We've seen that prototype.js is frequently asked about; as FAQ custodian
you should accept that. Just write a draft section, slightly expanded
from the above to the best of your IMMEDIATE knowledge, putting <what?>
or <where?or <how?where gaps need to be filled; and then post it
here for comment. If anyone else gives the answer, you don't need to
search for it yourself; if no-one knows, then it's hardly worth
searching yourself.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Plaintext, quoting : see <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SoRFC1036)
Feb 10 '07 #22

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <6Y********************@telcove.net>,
Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:02:55, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:
>
So, how often does something have to get asked to become "frequent"?
That is a ratio of about 1 every 3 days or so which is fairly frequent.
Dates are asked about almost as frequently yet the word Date appears
only once in the FAQ and that is in regards to Last Modified (which
never gets asked).
In comp.lang.javascript FAQ - 9.5 - 2007-01-23, both "date" and "dates"
occur in Section 3, together with "time" and "times"; that entry was
crafted, under a previous regime, to be search-friendly.
Remember that the real purpose of a FAQ is not to answer frequently-
asked questions; it is to answer questions which otherwise would have
been frequently asked.
<FAQENTRY>
"Microsoft's Windows Scripting Host (WSH) Newsgroup:-
microsoft.public.scripting.wsh"
->
"Microsoft's Windows Scripting Host (WSH) and JScript Newsgroups:-
microsoft.public.scripting.wsh and microsoft.public.scripting.jscript"

I know that the JScript newsgroup is cited elsewhere in the FAQ.

It's a good idea to read the newsgroup and its FAQ. See below.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6
news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htmjscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Feb 10 '07 #23

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton said the following on 2/9/2007 6:59 PM:
In comp.lang.javascript message <ZO********************@telcove.net>,
Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:18:02, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:
>Dr J R Stockton said the following on 2/8/2007 5:37 PM:
>>In comp.lang.javascript message <EK********************@telcove.net>,
Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:13:45, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:
Peter Michaux said the following on 2/6/2007 6:40 PM:
On Feb 6, 9:26 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:
>
>The idea of putting something in the FAQ with regards to Prototype
>has
>been brought up before and it was decided that it was a bad idea. If you
>start listing what is wrong with Prototype then you would have to start
>listing the problems with any/all libraries and that gets way too
>exhaustive and more than I care to do :)
But Prototype is the library that comes up the most frequently
making
it a good candidate for the FAQ.
Right now it does. But, is that because it's the most used library or
is it the most used by people that can't figure out what it's doing
wrong so they post questions here about it instead of in the
appropriate support forum?
FAQ Section 4.n :
"I need to know about prototype.js"
It's for ... ; it's good/bad/indifferent ; the >appropriate support
forum is ...".
And that still falls into the specific trap of listing certain
libraries. If you do one, you would need to do all that ever get asked
about and that's if you can find a support forum for it.


No I don't; and you don't either.
Thank you for telling me what I already knew as I wasn't going to do it
to start with.
Evidently you do not understand how to write a newsgroup FAQ;
No, what is evident is that you do not understand what I do or do not
understand. You have also gotten confused by whether I was writing as
the FAQ Maintainer or as a c.l.j poster.
it's not there just to show how clever the author has been.
Nobody said any different, other than you.
We've seen that prototype.js is frequently asked about; as FAQ custodian
you should accept that.
I did (as FAQ Editor), I just don't agree with it as a poster/regular here.
Just write a draft section, slightly expanded from the above to the
best of your IMMEDIATE knowledge, putting <what?or <where?or <how?>
where gaps need to be filled; and then post it here for comment.
There is already a draft section, written by you, that nobody has
commented on.
If anyone else gives the answer, you don't need to search for it
yourself; if no-one knows, then it's hardly worth searching yourself.
I wasn't going to search to start with. If someone wants to write a
revised draft entry based on yours then it can be discussed more and
come up with a final entry.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Feb 11 '07 #24

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.