FAQ Version 9.86 Dated 2007-10-03

[FAQEditor]

FAQ Version 9.86 Dated 2007-10-03 has been uploaded.

Most changes are cosmetic and some typo corrections.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[Stevo]

FAQEditor wrote:

FAQ Version 9.86 Dated 2007-10-03 has been uploaded.

Most changes are cosmetic and some typo corrections.

For FAQ's sake (read those last 3 words in a cockney accent),
is it possible to auto-generate a message every day with the URL to it?
I think recent threads (as you've observed) are a clear indicator that
people aren't finding their way to the FAQ. Newbies coming here don't
see the URL anywhere, and don't know that they just need to look in any
Randy message at the sig. I think one message every day with a subject
that shows that this message contains the URL to the FAQ would cut down
on volume.

[FAQEditor]

Stevo said the following on 10/3/2007 2:22 PM:

FAQEditor wrote:

>FAQ Version 9.86 Dated 2007-10-03 has been uploaded.

Most changes are cosmetic and some typo corrections.

For FAQ's sake (read those last 3 words in a cockney accent),
is it possible to auto-generate a message every day with the URL to it?

The daily postings have the URL in the signature block:

<quote>
===
Postings such as this are automatically sent once a day. Their
goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html.
The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers. The sendings of these
daily posts are proficiently hosted by www.pair.com.
</quote>

If they aren't seeing the daily postings, then I don't think a daily
posting of the FAQ address would matter. And yes, I have read questions
that were posted that were answered in the FAQ and posted *that* *day*
to the group. Yet, the poster couldn't be bothered to look. When it was
pointed out that the answer was just posted that day, the response has
usually been along the lines "Why don't you just answer my question?" or
"It was easier to ask than research it".

If the group thinks it will help, I will email Bart and ask about it
(unless he is reading this thread). I also need to ask him to change the
signature delimiter in the daily postings.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <fe*************@news.t-online.com>,
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:22:35, Stevo <pl****@spam-me.composted:

>FAQEditor wrote:

>FAQ Version 9.86 Dated 2007-10-03 has been uploaded.
Most changes are cosmetic and some typo corrections.

For FAQ's sake (read those last 3 words in a cockney accent),
is it possible to auto-generate a message every day with the URL to it?
I think recent threads (as you've observed) are a clear indicator that
people aren't finding their way to the FAQ. Newbies coming here don't
see the URL anywhere, and don't know that they just need to look in any
Randy message at the sig. I think one message every day with a subject
that shows that this message contains the URL to the FAQ would cut down
on volume.

Have you considered reading, to the end, any of the daily articles with
Subject = "FAQ Topic - ..." ? Given that Subject, ISTM reasonable to
suspect that the URL might be given inside.

Had you noticed that the FAQ itself is posted to CLJ very frequently?
It says so itself, in section 2.5. However, at least one ISP does not
receive it.

--
(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.

[Stevo]

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:22:35, Stevo <pl****@spam-me.composted:

>For FAQ's sake (read those last 3 words in a cockney accent),
is it possible to auto-generate a message every day with the URL to it?

Have you considered reading, to the end, any of the daily articles with
Subject = "FAQ Topic - ..." ? Given that Subject, ISTM reasonable to
suspect that the URL might be given inside.

Had you noticed that the FAQ itself is posted to CLJ very frequently?
It says so itself, in section 2.5. However, at least one ISP does not
receive it.

It's not so much about what I've noticed that's important, it's whether
newbies coming here notice the FAQ, and evidence implies that they haven't.

[Randy Webb]

Stevo said the following on 10/4/2007 3:05 AM:

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

>Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:22:35, Stevo <pl****@spam-me.composted:

>>For FAQ's sake (read those last 3 words in a cockney accent),
is it possible to auto-generate a message every day with the URL to it?

Have you considered reading, to the end, any of the daily articles with
Subject = "FAQ Topic - ..." ? Given that Subject, ISTM reasonable to
suspect that the URL might be given inside.

Had you noticed that the FAQ itself is posted to CLJ very frequently?
It says so itself, in section 2.5. However, at least one ISP does not
receive it.

It's not so much about what I've noticed that's important, it's whether
newbies coming here notice the FAQ, and evidence implies that they haven't.

And evidence in the past has also implied that the daily postings don't
get noticed either. There have been posts made after a daily posting
that asked the same exact question that was asked in the daily posting.
Yet, it still got asked and it was even mentioned that the exact
question was just posted *that* day. What is to make anybody believe
that a daily posting about the entire FAQ would change that?

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

[Peter Michaux]

On Oct 4, 5:31 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

Stevo said the following on 10/4/2007 3:05 AM:

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:22:35, Stevo <[e-mail]:
For FAQ's sake (read those last 3 words in a cockney accent),
is it possible to auto-generate a message every day with the URL to it?

Have you considered reading, to the end, any of the daily articles with
Subject = "FAQ Topic - ..." ? Given that Subject, ISTM reasonable to
suspect that the URL might be given inside.

Had you noticed that the FAQ itself is posted to CLJ very frequently?
It says so itself, in section 2.5. However, at least one ISP does not
receive it.

It's not so much about what I've noticed that's important, it's whether
newbies coming here notice the FAQ, and evidence implies that they haven't.

And evidence in the past has also implied that the daily postings don't
get noticed either. There have been posts made after a daily posting
that asked the same exact question that was asked in the daily posting.
Yet, it still got asked and it was even mentioned that the exact
question was just posted *that* day. What is to make anybody believe
that a daily posting about the entire FAQ would change that?

I don't think posting the FAQ address independently will change
anything. Think how many drop-down menu questions there have been
lately when there is/was a particularly long, current thread on the
topic.

Just politely redirect a poster to the FAQ when it contains an answer
to a question. I've done this a few times lately. It isn't so painful.
The c.l.js group doesn't have so much traffic these days.

Peter

[Randy Webb]

Peter Michaux said the following on 10/5/2007 12:59 AM:

On Oct 4, 5:31 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

>Stevo said the following on 10/4/2007 3:05 AM:

>>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 20:22:35, Stevo <[e-mail]:
For FAQ's sake (read those last 3 words in a cockney accent),
is it possible to auto-generate a message every day with the URL to it?
Have you considered reading, to the end, any of the daily articles with
Subject = "FAQ Topic - ..." ? Given that Subject, ISTM reasonable to
suspect that the URL might be given inside.
Had you noticed that the FAQ itself is posted to CLJ very frequently?
It says so itself, in section 2.5. However, at least one ISP does not
receive it.
It's not so much about what I've noticed that's important, it's whether
newbies coming here notice the FAQ, and evidence implies that they haven't.

And evidence in the past has also implied that the daily postings don't
get noticed either. There have been posts made after a daily posting
that asked the same exact question that was asked in the daily posting.
Yet, it still got asked and it was even mentioned that the exact
question was just posted *that* day. What is to make anybody believe
that a daily posting about the entire FAQ would change that?

I don't think posting the FAQ address independently will change
anything. Think how many drop-down menu questions there have been
lately when there is/was a particularly long, current thread on the
topic.

Precisely my point and reasoning.

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

[Bart Van der Donck]

FAQEditor wrote:

Stevo said the following on 10/3/2007 2:22 PM:

FAQEditor wrote:

FAQ Version 9.86 Dated 2007-10-03 has been uploaded.
Most changes are cosmetic and some typo corrections.

Thanks for the good work.

If they aren't seeing the daily postings, then I don't think a daily
posting of the FAQ address would matter. And yes, I have read questions
that were posted that were answered in the FAQ and posted *that* *day*
to the group. Yet, the poster couldn't be bothered to look. When it was
pointed out that the answer was just posted that day, the response has
usually been along the lines "Why don't you just answer my question?" or
"It was easier to ask than research it".

I cannot think of a way to get the FAQ more visible than now, unless
the signal-to-noise ratio would become unpleasant.

If the group thinks it will help, I will email Bart and ask about it
(unless he is reading this thread).

It's quite easy to let Cron send a static message every day if you
want (but, see above).

I also need to ask him to change the signature delimiter in the
daily postings.

I have changed it into "-- ".

Originally I already used "-- " as signature delimiter. But then it
was suggested that "===" would be a better alternative, so it was
adapted since then; see thread on:

http://tinyurl.com/2wuklo

--
Bart

[Bart Van der Donck]

FAQEditor wrote:

FAQ Version 9.86 Dated 2007-10-03 has been uploaded.
Most changes are cosmetic and some typo corrections.

My personal feeling is that the FAQ could use some new entries that
are quick/qualitative/useful regarding common problems. Eg.
- How can I check for a valid email-address ?
- How do I walk through an Array or through an Object ?
- When should I not use javascript ?
- Where to send bug reports ?
- How to find the date of tomorrow ?
- How to unescape a string ?
- How to get a random number ?
- How can I safely protect a webpage with a password using
javascript ?
etc.

I'm very well aware that much material already exists. It might be a
good idea to extend the FAQ with that material (with permission of the
authors, obviously).

Also, I think regular expressions deserve a less stepmotherly
treatment. E.g. Perl knows an open library for all kinds of regexes
that you ever want (and don't want) to use:

http://search.cpan.org/~abigail/Regexp-Common/

I don't know of such a library for javascript. Such a project would
probably be very popular and handy (at least, Perl's Regexp::Common
is).

--
Bart

[Randy Webb]

Bart Van der Donck said the following on 10/5/2007 11:30 AM:

FAQEditor wrote:

>Stevo said the following on 10/3/2007 2:22 PM:

>>FAQEditor wrote:
FAQ Version 9.86 Dated 2007-10-03 has been uploaded.
Most changes are cosmetic and some typo corrections.

Thanks for the good work.

>If they aren't seeing the daily postings, then I don't think a daily
posting of the FAQ address would matter. And yes, I have read questions
that were posted that were answered in the FAQ and posted *that* *day*
to the group. Yet, the poster couldn't be bothered to look. When it was
pointed out that the answer was just posted that day, the response has
usually been along the lines "Why don't you just answer my question?" or
"It was easier to ask than research it".

I cannot think of a way to get the FAQ more visible than now, unless
the signal-to-noise ratio would become unpleasant.

Personally, I don't think that posting anymore about the FAQ would do
anything other than create more traffic. People don't pay attention to
what is posted now.

>If the group thinks it will help, I will email Bart and ask about it
(unless he is reading this thread).

It's quite easy to let Cron send a static message every day if you
want (but, see above).

Personally, I don't. If the group does, fine. I think it is a waste of
time though.

>I also need to ask him to change the signature delimiter in the
daily postings.

I have changed it into "-- ".

Originally I already used "-- " as signature delimiter. But then it
was suggested that "===" would be a better alternative, so it was
adapted since then; see thread on:

http://tinyurl.com/2wuklo

It is a signature and should be marked as such :)

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

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <mv*********************@giganews.com>,
Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:31:52, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>
And evidence in the past has also implied that the daily postings don't
get noticed either. There have been posts made after a daily posting
that asked the same exact question that was asked in the daily posting.
Yet, it still got asked and it was even mentioned that the exact
question was just posted *that* day. What is to make anybody believe
that a daily posting about the entire FAQ would change that?

U/S logic.

Your observation shows that at least some posters do not bother with, or
notice, the FAQ. It does not show that no posters use the FAQ; those
who find the answer in the FAQ will not post - that's what a FAQ is for.

--
(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.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SonOfRFC1036)

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <11*********************@k79g2000hse.goo
glegroups.com>, Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:22:12, Bart Van der Donck
<ba**@nijlen.composted:

>
My personal feeling is that the FAQ could use some new entries that
are quick/qualitative/useful regarding common problems. Eg.
- How can I check for a valid email-address ?

See, but do not cite, <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-valid.htm>.

>- How to find the date of tomorrow ?

Covered in Sec 3.2.

>- How to get a random number ?

FAQ 4.22.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/clpb-faq.txt RAH Prins : c.l.p.b mFAQ;
<URL:ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tsfaqp.zipTimo Salmi's Turbo Pascal FAQ.

[Randy Webb]

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/5/2007 5:09 PM:

In comp.lang.javascript message <mv*********************@giganews.com>,
Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:31:52, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>And evidence in the past has also implied that the daily postings don't
get noticed either. There have been posts made after a daily posting
that asked the same exact question that was asked in the daily posting.
Yet, it still got asked and it was even mentioned that the exact
question was just posted *that* day. What is to make anybody believe
that a daily posting about the entire FAQ would change that?

U/S logic.

I won't comment on the silliness of your abbreviations unless, and
until, you explain them. The one you used is flawed.

Your observation shows that at least some posters do not bother with, or
notice, the FAQ. It does not show that no posters use the FAQ; those
who find the answer in the FAQ will not post - that's what a FAQ is for.

OK, let me clarify it in a way that maybe you can understand. I doubt it
but I am willing to try.

The group of people that know the FAQ exists wouldn't benefit from a
daily posting pointing to it so it would be a waste of time.

The group of people that do not know the FAQ exists but find out about
it from posts here (whether an FAQ Topic post or not) wouldn't benefit
from a daily posting pointing to it so it would be a waste of time.

The group of people that do not know the FAQ exists, do not bother to
realize it exists from the current FAQ Topic postings and do not
comprehend it when told "The FAQ is here:...." or do not find out about
it from a posting (whether by direct post or a signature) still wouldn't
benefit from a daily posting pointing to it so it would be a waste of time.

In the end, there is no benefit to be gained from posting a daily
posting saying that the FAQ in entirety can be found at <URL:
http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html and that makes posting it a waste
of time and would simply create more needless noise in this group.

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

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <i-*********************@giganews.com>,
Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:24:39, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>
It is a signature and should be marked as such :)

It is not a signature; it is a footnote.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html-Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm: about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

[Randy Webb]

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/6/2007 8:54 AM:

In comp.lang.javascript message <i-*********************@giganews.com>,
Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:24:39, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>It is a signature and should be marked as such :)

It is not a signature; it is a footnote.

I disagree with you. Can you give a definitive definition of what a
"signature" is? That might cause me to agree with you.

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

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <RY*********************@giganews.com>,
Fri, 5 Oct 2007 19:30:24, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/5/2007 5:09 PM:

>In comp.lang.javascript message <mv*********************@giganews.com>,
Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:31:52, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>>And evidence in the past has also implied that the daily postings don't
get noticed either. There have been posts made after a daily posting
that asked the same exact question that was asked in the daily posting.
Yet, it still got asked and it was even mentioned that the exact
question was just posted *that* day. What is to make anybody believe
that a daily posting about the entire FAQ would change that?

U/S logic.

I won't comment on the silliness of your abbreviations unless, and
until, you explain them. The one you used is flawed.

Standard marking for British Services equipment, at least up to two or
three years into WWII, meaning "unserviceable". I believe it caused a
degree of resentment among those who joined the fray rather belatedly.

>Your observation shows that at least some posters do not bother with, or
notice, the FAQ. It does not show that no posters use the FAQ; those
who find the answer in the FAQ will not post - that's what a FAQ is for.

OK, let me clarify it in a way that maybe you can understand. I doubt
it but I am willing to try.

I know what you mean. The problem is merely that your logic is U/S.
For General Info : Javascript is not Java, but both are often used in
association with HTML, CSS, and browsers. The site starting at
<http://mindprod.com/index.htmldeals with Java rather than Javascript;
but it has useful-looking portions on HTML, CSS, and browsers.

--
(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.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SonOfRFC1036)

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <J9*********************@giganews.com>,
Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:24:31, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/6/2007 8:54 AM:

>In comp.lang.javascript message <i-*********************@giganews.com>,
Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:24:39, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>>It is a signature and should be marked as such :)

It is not a signature; it is a footnote.

I disagree with you. Can you give a definitive definition of what a
"signature" is? That might cause me to agree with you.

Try the OED for "signature" and "footnote", to see which best matches.
Try also the references in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block>
and other RFCs.

--
(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.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SonOfRFC1036)

[Randy Webb]

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/7/2007 8:26 AM:

In comp.lang.javascript message <J9*********************@giganews.com>,
Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:24:31, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/6/2007 8:54 AM:

>>In comp.lang.javascript message <i-*********************@giganews.com>,
Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:24:39, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:
It is a signature and should be marked as such :)

It is not a signature; it is a footnote.

I disagree with you. Can you give a definitive definition of what a
"signature" is? That might cause me to agree with you.

Try the OED for "signature" and "footnote", to see which best matches.
Try also the references in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block>
and other RFCs.

Very first line of the URL you posted reads:

<quote>
A signature block (often abbreviated as signature, sig block, sig file,
..sig, dot sig, siggy, or just sig) is a block of text automatically
appended at the bottom of an e-mail message, Usenet article, or forum post
</quote>

How does it not qualify as a "signature" based on your reference? It is
a signature by the definition you gave.

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

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <kc*********************@giganews.com>,
Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:01:58, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/7/2007 8:26 AM:

>In comp.lang.javascript message <J9*********************@giganews.com>,
Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:24:31, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>>Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/6/2007 8:54 AM:
In comp.lang.javascript message <i-*********************@giganews.com>,
Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:24:39, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:
It is a signature and should be marked as such :)
>
It is not a signature; it is a footnote.

I disagree with you. Can you give a definitive definition of what a
"signature" is? That might cause me to agree with you.

Try the OED for "signature" and "footnote", to see which best
matches.
Try also the references in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block>
and other RFCs.

Very first line of the URL you posted reads:

But I did not suggest that you should read the Wiki article; just that
you should read the references that it gives near the end.

><quote>
A signature block (often abbreviated as signature, sig block, sig file,
.sig, dot sig, siggy, or just sig) is a block of text automatically
appended at the bottom of an e-mail message, Usenet article, or forum
post
</quote>

How does it not qualify as a "signature" based on your reference? It is
a signature by the definition you gave.

You should have read the rest of the paragraph, and preferably the rest
of the article. And the OED.

--
(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.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SonOfRFC1036)

[Peter Michaux]

On Oct 9, 2:00 pm, Dr J R Stockton <[e-mail]:

In comp.lang.javascript message <[e-mail]>,
Tue, 9 Oct 2007 01:33:39, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/8/2007 3:01 PM:

In comp.lang.javascript message <[e-mail]>,
Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:01:58, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:
Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/7/2007 8:26 AM:
In comp.lang.javascript message <[e-mail]>,
Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:24:31, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:
Dr J R Stockton said the following on 10/6/2007 8:54 AM:
In comp.lang.javascript message <[e-mail]>,
Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:24:39, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:
>It is a signature and should be marked as such :)

>>>> It is not a signature; it is a footnote.

>>>I disagree with you. Can you give a definitive definition of what a
"signature" is? That might cause me to agree with you.
Try the OED for "signature" and "footnote", to see which best
matches.
Try also the references in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block>
and other RFCs.
Very first line of the URL you posted reads:
But I did not suggest that you should read the Wiki article; just
that
you should read the references that it gives near the end.

I asked for a definition of "signature". The only reference or
potential definition you gave was the Wiki article and that article, in
the very first paragraph, contradicts you.

I wrote "Try also the references in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signat
ure_block>"; not "Read <...>.

Read <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantic>

Peter