RFD: How To Recognize Bad Javascript Code

[Jeremy J Starcher]

(Request for Discussion)

I've put together a guide that I hope will help novice coders avoid the
same hair pulling that I went through.

I'm open for comments about it.

Have I missed the mark on a point or two?
Have I overlooked something?
Is my basic goal flawed? Is code bad in so many different ways that I
should just pack up shop and forget this?

Or did I do a smashing bang-up job that will keep the new coders away from
the horrors of most online examples and finally end c.l.j's favorite
hobby?(*)

(*) Saying "That's junk! Don't do that!"

[Jeremy J Starcher]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 05:28:51 -0500, Jeremy J Starcher wrote:

(Request for Discussion)

I've put together a guide that I hope will help novice coders avoid the
same hair pulling that I went through.

And it would really help if I included

<URL: http://www.mopedepot.com/jjs/HowToRe...criptCode.html >

[slebetman]

On Jan 1, 6:37 pm, Jeremy J Starcher <[e-mail]>
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 05:28:51 -0500, Jeremy J Starcher wrote:

(Request for Discussion)

I've put together a guide that I hope will help novice coders avoid the
same hair pulling that I went through.

For the language="javascript" issue you recommended:
<script type="text/javascript"></script>

Personally I'd recommend just using:
<script></script>

Partly because "text/javascript" is an invalid MIME type, it should be
"application/javascript". But "application/javascript" is invalid
HTML, it MUST be "text/javascript". So best to avoid it altogether and
save keystrokes/bytes.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

slebetman wrote:

On Jan 1, 6:37 pm, Jeremy J Starcher <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 05:28:51 -0500, Jeremy J Starcher wrote:

>>(Request for Discussion)
I've put together a guide that I hope will help novice coders avoid the
same hair pulling that I went through.

For the language="javascript" issue you recommended:
<script type="text/javascript"></script>

Which is correct.

Personally I'd recommend just using:
<script></script>

So you would recommend invalid markup.

http://validator.w3.org/

Partly because "text/javascript" is an invalid MIME type,

It isn't.

it should be "application/javascript".

It shouldn't.

But "application/javascript" is invalid HTML,

It isn't.

it MUST be "text/javascript".

It needs not to.

So best to avoid it altogether and save keystrokes/bytes.

You are completely wrong:

http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/mime-types/

BTW, we discussed this only a few days ago. Please read before you post.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann

[Richard Cornford]

slebetman wrote:
<snip>

For the language="javascript" issue you recommended:
<script type="text/javascript"></script>

Personally I'd recommend just using:
<script></script>

Which could never be valid (x)HTML mark-up as the TYPE attribute is
required by the pertinent validity rules.

Partly because "text/javascript" is an invalid MIME type,

It is not an "invalid" MIME type. It was a fictional MIME type up until
2006, and then it became an inappropriately labelled "obsolete" MIME
type (inappropriate because it does not make sense to declare something
as obsolete until it is practical to not use it).

it should be "application/javascript".

And it probably will be "application/javascript" at some point in the
relatively distant future when "text/javascript" actually becomes
obsolete.

But "application/javascript" is invalid HTML,

No it is not. The values for the TYPE attribute are externally
referenced from the (x)HTML specifications in a way that implies that
any current MIME type would be valid (and mark-up validators don't check
those external references anyway).

it MUST be "text/javascript".

There certainly is no "MUST" about it. The formulation
TYPE="text/javascript" is used because it is the valid mark-up that has
been observed to be universally successful (or non-problematic). The
odds are that that universal effectiveness results from
"text/javascript" being used as an example value in the HTML
specification, regardless of the fact that at the time there was no MIME
type for javascript.

So best to avoid it altogether and
save keystrokes/bytes.

So it comes down to an appeal to idleness? There may be valid reasons
for abandoning mark-up validity but idleness does not seem like
sufficient reason in itself. (Especially is it is actually being too
idle to write (or go out and find) a macro that will insert the entire
script tag as a result of one action, or use some other similar editor
facility.)

Richard.

[Jeremy J Starcher]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 05:14:23 -0800, slebetman wrote:

Personally I'd recommend just using:
<script></script>

Partly because "text/javascript" is an invalid MIME type, it should be
"application/javascript". But "application/javascript" is invalid
HTML, it MUST be "text/javascript". So best to avoid it altogether and
save keystrokes/bytes.

I had forgotten about "application/javascript" I saw that discussion a
few days ago and made a mental note. Since my mental notes are written in
the sea-shore at low tide -- I forgot.

It is my understanding that this mime type is actually recognized by
anything in the world and has been rushed into service without a valid
reason for the rush.

We hang onto "text/javascript" because pretty much everything supports it
and it still works. Not only works, but works better than its proposed
replacement.

[Doug Miller]

In article <pa****************************@yahoo.spam.me.not. com>, Jeremy J Starcher <r3***@yahoo.spam.me.not.comwrote:

>On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:01:51 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Jeremy J Starcher wrote:

>>Have I missed the mark on a point or two?
Have I overlooked something?

Plenty.

1. "Depreciated script tag usage"

a. The word you were looking for is _deprecated_, not "depreciated".

Absolutely correct. Thought I spell-checked everything. I'll fix that.

"Depreciated" *is* correctly spelled. It's just not the right word. :-)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Randy Webb]

Jeremy J Starcher said the following on 1/1/2008 12:59 PM:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:01:51 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

<snip>

> d. "JavaScript1.2" actually means something in NN4; ask Google.
I have never seen anyone using "JavaScript1.3", though.

I didn't know if that was backwards compatible to browsers today or not.
If memory serves me correctly, it changes some of the array methods.

The most notable thing it did was change comparisons.

var x=2
var y="thirty"
if(x=y){
alert('They are equal')
}

>2. 'Using "href:javascript"'

| Using the pseudo-protocol javascript in the href is never valid. Not
| only is such code not valid HTML, [...]

Wrong. The value of the `href' attribute is of type URI. If
`javascript:' syntax would be written as an URI, it would certainly
be valid there. One point of recommending against `javascript:'
there is that

| it cannot provide a fallback to browsers not running Javascript.

There are other points that I have also mentioned in my FAQ notes last
year. There are also exceptions to be made in special cases.

Hmmm... This point has me thinking now. I'll have to ponder the best way
to phrase the URI issue. "Valid, but not recommended" perhaps.

I'll try and find your FAQ notes. If you are feeling generous I'll take a
donated URL to it.

The group FAQ, and the Notes pages on it, cover just about every aspect
of javascript: protocols.

>4. 'Not ending lines in a semi-colon ";"'

The argument in favor of the trailing `;' is flawed in two regards:
a) not every line should be ended with a semicolon but every *statement*;

I code in C. I know that. Somewhere it got lost between brain and
keyboard. Maybe I've been using "one statement per line" scripting
languages too much.

The argument of "This is the way it works in <otherlanguage", isn't an
argument when it comes to Javascript.

> b) minifiers should not be used. See previous discussions.

I knew that was going to come up. I'm tempted to yank that whole section
out, except that style-wise I -really- like having the semicolon there.
Code without it grates on me.

It should be pulled.

>5. "Use of eval"

| Using eval to parse JSON works well. While there are some security
| concerns, they can be easily addressed.

There are two other uses where using eval() is considered appropriate.
One is making arbitrary computations with user input,

Yes, I should mention that. While I've only seen it used for "trivial"
calculator applications, I suppose it would be the basis for an Javascript
spreadsheet or something.

See my other reply. eval will beat "traditional" methods of computation
hands down. And the example I posted is a very simple example.

using try/catch. The try/catch is faster when available.

try/catch is another of the things you didn't cover. Don't use it.

> A reasoning for the statement that the security concerns could be
easily addressed is missing.

I'll toss in this link: <URL: http://www.json.org/json2.js In my
reading, I haven't heard of anyone finding holes in it.

There is a non-eval alternative to JSON.

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

[Jeremy J Starcher]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:13:51 -0500, Anthony Levensalor wrote:

<snip>

Are you a programmer or an English teacher? Oh, you're both! That would
explain a whole bunch.

<snip>

This, right here, this is why people get irritated with you, I think.
Maybe you just like being a pompous arrogant , I dunno, but most other
people don't care for it. You lack that internal filter that says "don't
say that, that's what a pontificating, unmitigated ass would say"

[start way off-topic]

While I don't know Thomas "PointedEars" personally, and won't speak for
him I do know his personality type. Rather than defend him in particular
allow me to say a few words for the entire "have-no-people skills but
really good with machine" type people.

Or not. You said it already. "You lack that internal filter..."

In many cases that is literally true. An unusually high percentage of
people with Asperger's Syndrome enter computer science. Among other
issues, people with Aspergers lack the social graces that the rest of the
population wears.

Once again, I don't know Thomas personally, but I will say this. This
group needs him and people like him. They are the ones who remind us of
the edge cases. They are the ones who will remember weird interactions of
code and will spot flaws long before they become an issue.

When someone says 'All prime numbers are odd' they are the ones who will
remind us of the exception. While their delivery may lack social grace,
it always carries content.

While these people may not always be right, you would do well to listen to
their advice. If, in the end, you cannot see through personality flaws to
the real issues of code and programming then problem is yours. Rude
people cannot offend you. You can choose to be offended.

This is my only post on this particular thread. If you wish to have a
real discussion, feel free to start a new thread called "Gee! Why are
you people so rude?"

[end way off-topic]

[AKS]

On Jan 1, 11:30 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

Things you didn't cover:
...
Use of "new Function".

Is there anything wrong with use of "new Function"?

[Anthony Levensalor]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted :

Enclosing text with the underline character is used in Usenet to mark text
as an underlined correction because in plain text the usual text formatting
is not available. Your Thunderbird and mine even have a feature implemented
that formats text that way if the parser encounters that syntax. The same
goes for `*...*' (bold, usually meant as emphasis) and `/.../' (italic, also
emphasis).

I know. ;)

Maybe you are an idiot. (See, *now* I said it.)

Could be, definitely. I've been called worse by better.

The reaction of the OP says otherwise. So much for reading.

Yup, I got thumped on this one.

*PLONK*

That actually wasn't meant to be a flame. That was meant to help you
become someone we could all adore.
~A!

[Anthony Levensalor]

Jeremy J Starcher posted :

>This, right here, this is why people get irritated with you, I think.
Maybe you just like being a pompous arrogant , I dunno, but most other
people don't care for it. You lack that internal filter that says "don't
say that, that's what a pontificating, unmitigated ass would say"

[start way off-topic]

While I don't know Thomas "PointedEars" personally, and won't speak for
him I do know his personality type. Rather than defend him in particular
allow me to say a few words for the entire "have-no-people skills but
really good with machine" type people.

[snip]
Jerry,

First, I liked your doc, and the comments on it so far have taught me a
lot. I haven't commented because I lack the experience to intelligently
do so

As for Thomas, I was sniping. He irritates me. I really didn't want to
do anything in that post but irritate him, apologies for sidetracking
the discussion of your work. I hate to see someone put so much effort
and labor into something to have someone be so callous about it.

~A!

[Randy Webb]

AKS said the following on 1/1/2008 2:03 PM:

On Jan 1, 11:30 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

>Things you didn't cover:
...
Use of "new Function".

Is there anything wrong with use of "new Function"?

Other than it is an equivalent to eval?

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

[Anthony Levensalor]

Jeremy J Starcher posted :

Not to name names, but had I the skill to recognize
<URL: http://www.dynamicdrive.com/ for what it was, I wouldn't have had
to unlearn so much.

I'm just heading down that "re-learning everything I thought I knew"
path in Javascript because of that and sites like it. Thanks for not
wanting anyone else to go through this, it's not fun.

~A!

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Anthony Levensalor wrote:

First, I liked your doc, and the comments on it so far have taught me a
lot.

But you despise the people that made them? Something doesn't add up here.

I haven't commented because I lack the experience to intelligently do so

That much is obvious.

As for Thomas, I was sniping. He irritates me. I really didn't want to do
anything in that post but irritate him,

If you do think that could do any good, you are using the wrong medium.
You are back out of my killfile, for now, but scored Lowest.

apologies for sidetracking the discussion of your work.

You are apologizing to the wrong person.

I hate to see someone put so much effort and labor into something to have
someone be so callous about it.

You missed:

,-<47**************@PointedEars.de>
|
| [...]
| Is my basic goal flawed?
|
| I don't think so. I think it would make a fine addition to the FAQ after
| careful evaluation.
|
| Is code bad in so many different ways
|
| You can bet on that.
|
| that I should just pack up shop and forget this?
|
| No, it's a good start.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16

[Anthony Levensalor]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted :

If you do think that could do any good, you are using the wrong medium.
You are back out of my killfile, for now, but scored Lowest.

Could you put me back in?

~A!

[Randy Webb]

Anthony Levensalor said the following on 1/1/2008 3:31 PM:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted :

>If you do think that could do any good, you are using the wrong medium.
You are back out of my killfile, for now, but scored Lowest.

Could you put me back in?

My life is so much calmer since he kill-filed me. I hope I stay there
forever.

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

[Jeremy J Starcher]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:43:15 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Jeremy J Starcher wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:01:51 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> d. "JavaScript1.2" actually means something in NN4; ask Google.
I have never seen anyone using "JavaScript1.3", though.

I didn't know if that was backwards compatible to browsers today or not.
If memory serves me correctly, it changes some of the array methods.

Care to elaborate?

The bottom section of this page:

<URL: http://bclary.com/2004/08/27/javascr...ompatibilities >
and
<URL:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xn5...FijvaXLV72CwIa >

(Sorry for the URL lengths.) Memory says there was one other issue
regarding arrays and Javascript1.2, but I can't recall now.

>>2. 'Using "href:javascript"'

[...]
There are other points that I have also mentioned in my FAQ
notes last year. There are also exceptions to be made in
special cases.

Wow. You know stuff I didn't even know I didn't know. Those are enough
of an edge-case I doubt I will include them in this article though. Its
not the sort of thing most folks will find looking for code snippets.

>

>> A reasoning for the statement that the security concerns could be
easily addressed is missing.

I'll toss in this link: <URL: http://www.json.org/json2.js In my
reading, I haven't heard of anyone finding holes in it.

I know the JSON reference implementation but I don't see how that would
provide a reason for your statement that it would be easy to address
security concerns that using eval() with JSON would introduce. Care to
elaborate?

Either we are talking cross-purposes here, or I am really missing
something. It is my understanding that the JSON.parser has enough
checking to filter out anything that isn't data and therefore it "easily
addresses the security concerns that using eval()" introduces.

[Jeremy J Starcher]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:32:47 -0500, Randy Webb wrote:

Jeremy J Starcher said the following on 1/1/2008 2:38 PM:

>On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:30:25 -0500, Randy Webb wrote:
Not to name names, but had I the skill to recognize
<URL: http://www.dynamicdrive.com/ for what it was, I wouldn't have had
to unlearn so much.

Some of the first copy/paste scripts I ever used came from there. It
took a while for me to understand what was wrong with them. The first
tutorial I ever went through (web-based) was on the HTMLGoodies site
when Joe Burns was writing them. Not the best quality but at the time
the best I could find. Was enough to "Get my feet wet" and obtain the
desire to know more.

Now, I wish a good one did exist.

I know the "Code Worth Recommending Project" has taken on some of that.
They are going through some growth pains and sorting out some of the
basics. I'd be willing to donate code once they are ready for
higher-level functions.

As for a good tutorial: I've actually thought about writing one. Its
been over a decade since I've done any real technical writing, but I think
I could find the touch again. Like all of us, the trouble is time. With
all the crap on the market, I don't know if my book would actually -sell-
and I'd feel obligated to c.l.j for at least -part- of the money I made on
the second edition, because the first edition will be red-lettered to
death from you guys. *grin* Not a bad thing, but I can't easily post a
credit-card number here and say 'Withdraw what you earned.'

[Jeremy J Starcher]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:38:43 -0500, Randy Webb wrote:

[regarding javascript: protocol]

The group FAQ, and the Notes pages on it, cover just about every aspect
of javascript: protocols.

I'll re-read the FAQ again, thanks.

try/catch is another of the things you didn't cover. Don't use it.

I've not used try/catch in Javascript myself, but I've done reading on it.

According to <URL: http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_try_catch.asp >
try...catch statement is available in IE5+, Mozilla 1.0, and
Netscape 6. Googling says Opera and KHTML both have it.

I don't understand the concern ... are there common browsers out there
that don't support it? I've heard rumors about mobile devices, but
nothing concrete.

c2**********************************...oglegroups.com

would seem to dictate that is the case.

[David Mark]

On Jan 1, 4:50*pm, Jeremy J Starcher <[e-mail]>
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:38:43 -0500, Randy Webb wrote:

[snip]

>

try/catch is another of the things you didn't cover. Don't use it.

I've not used try/catch in Javascript myself, but I've done reading on it.

According to <URL:http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_try_catch.asp>
try...catch statement is available in IE5+, Mozilla 1.0, and
Netscape 6. *Googling says Opera and KHTML both have it.

True enough.

>
I don't understand the concern ... *are there common browsers out there
that don't support it? *I've heard rumors about mobile devices, but
nothing concrete. *

Certainly there are mobile devices (and other agents) using script
engines that do not parse try-catch clauses. A good rule of thumb is
to relegate the use of try-catch to scripts that you can afford to
lose in such browsers. In other words, if you have enhancements that
will work in virtually any browser (e.g. form validation), don't lump
them in with or make them reliant upon scripts that feature try-catch
clauses (e.g. Ajax, Flash.) That way agents that ignore the scripts
with try-catch clauses can still make use of the other enhancements.

[Randy Webb]

Jeremy J Starcher said the following on 1/1/2008 3:56 PM:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:32:47 -0500, Randy Webb wrote:

>Jeremy J Starcher said the following on 1/1/2008 2:38 PM:

>>On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:30:25 -0500, Randy Webb wrote:
Not to name names, but had I the skill to recognize
<URL: http://www.dynamicdrive.com/ for what it was, I wouldn't have had
to unlearn so much.

Some of the first copy/paste scripts I ever used came from there. It
took a while for me to understand what was wrong with them. The first
tutorial I ever went through (web-based) was on the HTMLGoodies site
when Joe Burns was writing them. Not the best quality but at the time
the best I could find. Was enough to "Get my feet wet" and obtain the
desire to know more.

Now, I wish a good one did exist.

I know the "Code Worth Recommending Project" has taken on some of that.

No, it doesn't. That project is more of a library project than anything
else. It doesn't show how to write code, only shows the code.

They are going through some growth pains and sorting out some of the
basics. I'd be willing to donate code once they are ready for
higher-level functions.

The higher-level functions aren't exactly the best pieces of code for a
beginner to be learning from though. Good to learn coding style from but
not how to actually write the code. Hard to understand how/why to do
something if you don't understand the language itself.

As for a good tutorial: I've actually thought about writing one. Its
been over a decade since I've done any real technical writing, but I think
I could find the touch again. Like all of us, the trouble is time.

That is why you don't see any. The people that have the knowledge don't
have the time (or lack the desire) to write one.

With all the crap on the market, I don't know if my book would actually -sell-
and I'd feel obligated to c.l.j for at least -part- of the money I made on
the second edition, because the first edition will be red-lettered to
death from you guys. *grin* Not a bad thing, but I can't easily post a
credit-card number here and say 'Withdraw what you earned.'

Don't post it to Usenet, just email it to me. I won't tell anybody and
won't abuse it, I promise :)

--
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 <fl**********@registered.motzarella.org>
, Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:13:51, Anthony Levensalor
<an*****@mypetprogrammer.composted:

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted :

>Are you a programmer or an English teacher? Oh, you're both! That would
explain a whole bunch.

It is commonly considered polite and prudent to read a newsgroup for a
while *before* posting to it. If you had done that, you would have
known about Thomas Lahn.

--
(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.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <pa****************************@yahoo.sp
am.me.not.com>, Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:59:00, Jeremy J Starcher
<r3***@yahoo.spam.me.not.composted:

>
I'll try and find your FAQ notes. If you are feeling generous I'll take a
donated URL to it.

It is commonly considered polite and prudent to read a newsgroup for a
while, and to seek its FAQ, *before* posting to it. The FAQ of this
group is readily found by reading the group (and otherwise), and links
to its Notes.

It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j 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.

[RobG]

On Jan 2, 6:22*am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Anthony Levensalor wrote:

First, I liked your doc, and the comments on it so far have taught me a
lot.

But you despise the people that made them? *Something doesn't add up here.

Yes, it does, you're just playing cute. It's not what you say, it's
the way that you say it. You've been told that /ad nauseam/.
--
Rob

[David Mark]

On Jan 1, 7:23*pm, RobG <[e-mail]:
[snip]

>
There is also argument over the use of minifiers. I think they are a
valid way to reduce code bulk, however zipping code files is probably
as effective and doesn't require 2 sets of testing.

GZIP compression should be handled by the Web server as it needs to
negotiate this with each client. Manually compressing files is a bad
idea as some clients will choke on them. Another reason to minify is
that compression (when available) will only reduce comment bulk,
whereas minification eliminates it.

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.dewrites:

Anthony Levensalor wrote:

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted :

>> b. The term you were looking for is `script' _element_,

“‘script’ element _type_�

>> Elements consist of tags (start tag, close tag)

The terms you were looking for are ‘start-tag’ and ‘end-tag’. See ISO
8879, clause 7.3, or otherwise not the FAQ, part 5 (and also part 4, now
that I come to think about it :).

>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/intr...t.html#h-3.2.1

That’s but a for dummies introduction to SGML, found in a technical
“recommendation� that itself has a hard time to get all this SGML arcane
right.

>Funny thing is, I looked that page up and down buddy, and I didn't see
anything about a script _element_ anywhere. Maybe your underscore is broken.

Maybe you are an idiot. (See, *now* I said it.)

And he didn’t even say that there is no notion of a ‘`script'’
element type *anywhere* in HTML 4. :)

--
DELIM
GENERAL SGMLREF
STAGO "`"
TAGC "'"

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.dewrites:

>Anthony Levensalor wrote:

>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted :
b. The term you were looking for is `script' _element_,

“‘script’ element _type_”

`script' is definitely an element type, but "Deprecated `script' element
type usage" would indicate that the element type itself is deprecated, which
it is not.

>>> Elements consist of tags (start tag, close tag)

The terms you were looking for are ‘start-tag’ and ‘end-tag’. See ISO
8879, clause 7.3, or otherwise not the FAQ, part 5 (and also part 4, now
that I come to think about it :).

There is no requirement for a hyphen in compound words in English.

You are merely splitting hairs while I was pointing out the use of wrong
technical terms -- a slight, but important difference.
PointedEars

[John W. Kennedy]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

a. The word you were looking for is _deprecated_, not "depreciated".

Actually, "depreciated" is the correct word. Some moron about 75 years
ago decided that "deprecated" sounded more kewl, and got the two words
hopelessly confused. Properly, to deprecate something is to pray to be
protected from it, ee.g.:

From all evyll and myschief, from synne, from the craftes and assaultes
of the devill, from thy wrath, and from everlastyng damnacion.

Good lorde deliver us.

From blindnes of hearte, from pryde, vaynglory, and hypocrisy, from
envy, harred and malice, and all uncharytablenes:

Good lorde deliver us.

From all fornycacion and all deadly synne, and from all the deceiptes
of the worlde, the fleshe, and the devill:

Good lorde deliver us.

From lightnyng and tempast, from plage, pestilence and famyne, from
battayle and murder, & from sodaine death:

Good lorde deliver us.

From all sedycion and privey conspiracie, from the tyranny of the
bisshop of Rome and all his detestable enormyties, from all false
doctrine and heresye, from hardnes of hearte, and conmtempte of thy
worde and commaundemente:

Good lorde deliver us.

By the mystery of thy holy incarnacion, by thy holye nativyte and
cirumcysyon, by the baptyisme, fastynge and temptacyon:

Good lorde deliver us.

By thyne agony and bluddy sweate, by thy crosse and passion, by thy
precious death and buryal, by thy glorious resurrectyon and ascension,
by the commyng of the holy Ghost:

Good lorde delyver us.

In al time of our tribulacion, in al tyme of our wealth, in the hour of
death, in the day of judgment:

Good lorde deliver us.

--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

[Doug Miller]

In article <47***********************@cv.net>, "John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.netwrote:

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> a. The word you were looking for is _deprecated_, not "depreciated".

Actually, "depreciated" is the correct word. Some moron about 75 years
ago decided that "deprecated" sounded more kewl, and got the two words
hopelessly confused. Properly, to deprecate something is to pray to be
protected from it, ee.g.:

Wrong on all counts. You need to find yourself a better dictionary.
"Deprecate" means to belittle; "depreciate" means to reduce the value of. The
Latin *root* of "deprecate" means to pray to be protected from, but that is
not its English meaning, properly or otherwise.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[John W. Kennedy]

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <47***********************@cv.net>, "John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.netwrote:

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> a. The word you were looking for is _deprecated_, not "depreciated".

Actually, "depreciated" is the correct word. Some moron about 75 years
ago decided that "deprecated" sounded more kewl, and got the two words
hopelessly confused. Properly, to deprecate something is to pray to be
protected from it, ee.g.:

Wrong on all counts. You need to find yourself a better dictionary.
"Deprecate" means to belittle; "depreciate" means to reduce the value of. The
Latin *root* of "deprecate" means to pray to be protected from, but that is
not its English meaning, properly or otherwise.

That /is/ its English meaning -- its only English meaning until the
early 20th century when, as I said, some moron got the two words mixed
up. The fact that modern dictionaries perforce have to acknowledge the
mistake doesn't change that.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The grand art mastered the thudding hammer of Thor
And the heart of our lord Taliessin determined the war."
-- Charles Williams. "Mount Badon"

[David Mark]

On Jan 1, 10:16*pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

David Mark said the following on 1/1/2008 5:10 PM:

On Jan 1, 1:30 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

Jeremy J Starcher said the following on 1/1/2008 5:37 AM:

>On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 05:28:51 -0500, Jeremy J Starcher wrote:
(Request for Discussion)
I've put together a guide that I hope will help novice coders avoid the
same hair pulling that I went through.
And it would really help if I included
<URL:http://www.mopedepot.com/jjs/HowToRecognizeBadJavascriptCode.html>
HTML Comments.
* Will cause problems when XHTML is used.

Script tag usage.
* text/javascript is an obsolete (although valid) MIME type.

But you have to use it for now if you want valid markup.

I do?

<script type="">
alert('Just checking')
</script>

The W3 validator validates it just fine. And all the PC based browsers I
tested it on happily gave me the alert.

So much for "valid HTML", eh?

That is valid markup (but an odd choice) and as there is type
indicated, browsers use the default of JavaScript. This is valid too:

<script type="application/javascript">
...
</script>

But is not recommended as it could confuse older browsers. So you are
left with two choices ("text/javascript" or ""), only one of which is
clear.

[Randy Webb]

David Mark said the following on 1/1/2008 10:34 PM:

On Jan 1, 10:16 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

>David Mark said the following on 1/1/2008 5:10 PM:

>>On Jan 1, 1:30 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:
Jeremy J Starcher said the following on 1/1/2008 5:37 AM:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 05:28:51 -0500, Jeremy J Starcher wrote:
>(Request for Discussion)
>I've put together a guide that I hope will help novice coders avoid the
>same hair pulling that I went through.
And it would really help if I included
<URL:http://www.mopedepot.com/jjs/HowToRecognizeBadJavascriptCode.html>
HTML Comments.
Will cause problems when XHTML is used.
Script tag usage.
text/javascript is an obsolete (although valid) MIME type.
But you have to use it for now if you want valid markup.

I do?

<script type="">
alert('Just checking')
</script>

The W3 validator validates it just fine. And all the PC based browsers I
tested it on happily gave me the alert.

So much for "valid HTML", eh?

That is valid markup (but an odd choice) and as there is type
indicated, browsers use the default of JavaScript. This is valid too:

<script type="application/javascript">
...
</script>

But is not recommended as it could confuse older browsers. So you are
left with two choices ("text/javascript" or ""), only one of which is
clear.

As for "validity", this is valid HTML:

<script type="HikkScript">

The difference is that browsers won't execute the script block.

I just find it ironically amusing is all.

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

[David Mark]

On Jan 1, 10:53*pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

David Mark said the following on 1/1/2008 10:34 PM:

On Jan 1, 10:16 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

David Mark said the following on 1/1/2008 5:10 PM:
On Jan 1, 1:30 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:
Jeremy J Starcher said the following on 1/1/2008 5:37 AM:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 05:28:51 -0500, Jeremy J Starcher wrote:
(Request for Discussion)
I've put together a guide that I hope will help novice coders avoidthe
same hair pulling that I went through.
And it would really help if I included
<URL:http://www.mopedepot.com/jjs/HowToRecognizeBadJavascriptCode.html>
HTML Comments.
* Will cause problems when XHTML is used.
Script tag usage.
* text/javascript is an obsolete (although valid) MIME type.
But you have to use it for now if you want valid markup.
I do?

<script type="">
alert('Just checking')
</script>

The W3 validator validates it just fine. And all the PC based browsers I
tested it on happily gave me the alert.

So much for "valid HTML", eh?

That is valid markup (but an odd choice) and as there is type
indicated, browsers use the default of JavaScript. *This is valid too:

<script type="application/javascript">
...
</script>

But is not recommended as it could confuse older browsers. *So you are
left with two choices ("text/javascript" or ""), only one of which is
clear.

As for "validity", this is valid HTML:

<script type="HikkScript">

Right. The validator only cares about the structure of the markup.

[Anthony Levensalor]

David Mark posted :

[snip]

Certainly there are mobile devices (and other agents) using script
engines that do not parse try-catch clauses. A good rule of thumb is
to relegate the use of try-catch to scripts that you can afford to
lose in such browsers. In other words, if you have enhancements that
will work in virtually any browser (e.g. form validation), don't lump
them in with or make them reliant upon scripts that feature try-catch
clauses (e.g. Ajax, Flash.) That way agents that ignore the scripts
with try-catch clauses can still make use of the other enhancements.

This is an excellent tip, thanks! I've got my current XMLHttpRequest
objects instantiating in try-catch blocks. (I found an article on the
net loong before I found the group)

~A!

[Gregor Kofler]

John W. Kennedy meinte:

>Wrong on all counts. You need to find yourself a better dictionary.
"Deprecate" means to belittle; "depreciate" means to reduce the value
of. The Latin *root* of "deprecate" means to pray to be protected
from, but that is not its English meaning, properly or otherwise.

ACK. Well, as a non-native speaker I don't have the insights of JWK... I
have to rely on dictionaries.

That /is/ its English meaning -- its only English meaning until the
early 20th century when, as I said, some moron got the two words mixed
up. The fact that modern dictionaries perforce have to acknowledge the
mistake doesn't change that.

So what? Names, meanings, words have changed throughout centuries
because of errors in translation or simple typos. Being a percevtive
person, you've probably realised that the year is 2008. (You should move
to Iceland - their language hasn't changed over the last thousand years.
Well, at least only very slightly.)

Gregor

--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

[Laurent vilday]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

Anthony Levensalor wrote:

>As for Thomas, I was sniping. He irritates me. I really didn't want to do
anything in that post but irritate him,

If you do think that could do any good, you are using the wrong medium.
You are back out of my killfile, for now, but scored Lowest.

LOL, you are so funny.

Please, pretty please, don't answer me, just killfile me.

Oh yes please killfile me for ever !

--
laurent

[Anthony Levensalor]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted :

Proper cache control headers are better than to rely on that feature.

Picky, picky.

Still a valid tip, however, just in case one should ever happen across a
page with, you know, improper cache control.

~A!

[Randy Webb]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 1/2/2008 9:13 AM:

<snip>

2. Using "href:javascript"

should be changed into 'Using href="javascript:..."'.

The "better example" should be

<a href="myhouse.jpg"
onclick="showPicture(this.href); return false;"

>Look! My house!</a>

which would demonstrate that graceful degradation does not imply
double maintenance.

And an even better solution would be:

<a href="myhouse.jpg"
onclick="return showPicture(this.href)"

>Look! My house!</a>

While ignoring the missing - mandatory - attributes.

<snip>

Unfortunately, your From and Message-ID headers still violate Internet
standard STD11/RFC2822, sections 6.2/3.4 and 4.6.1/3.6.4. Please fix that.

That's nice[1]. Anybody need the URL?

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

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Randy Webb wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 1/2/2008 9:13 AM:

>2. Using "href:javascript"

should be changed into 'Using href="javascript:..."'.

The "better example" should be

<a href="myhouse.jpg"
onclick="showPicture(this.href); return false;"

> >Look! My house!</a>

which would demonstrate that graceful degradation does not imply
double maintenance.

And an even better solution would be:

<a href="myhouse.jpg"
onclick="return showPicture(this.href)"

>Look! My house!</a>

It was a better solution where a popup window was involved. But it would
require an additional explanation of the return value of showPicture(),
which is why I did not propose it.

While ignoring the missing - mandatory - attributes.

There are no required attributes missing here.
PointedEars

[Doug Miller]

In article <47***********************@cv.net>, "John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.netwrote:

>Doug Miller wrote:

>In article <47***********************@cv.net>, "John W. Kennedy"

<jw*****@attglobal.netwrote:

>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
a. The word you were looking for is _deprecated_, not "depreciated".
Actually, "depreciated" is the correct word. Some moron about 75 years
ago decided that "deprecated" sounded more kewl, and got the two words
hopelessly confused. Properly, to deprecate something is to pray to be
protected from it, ee.g.:

Wrong on all counts. You need to find yourself a better dictionary.
"Deprecate" means to belittle; "depreciate" means to reduce the value of. The

>Latin *root* of "deprecate" means to pray to be protected from, but that is
not its English meaning, properly or otherwise.

That /is/ its English meaning --

No, it's not. It may have been at one time, but that is not its meaning now.

>its only English meaning until the
early 20th century when, as I said, some moron got the two words mixed
up. The fact that modern dictionaries perforce have to acknowledge the
mistake doesn't change that.

When, or how, the meaning may have happened to change is not relevant. The
meaning of the word *now* is "to belittle".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <4I*********************@giganews.com>,
Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:30:25, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>
Is this a good use of eval?
function convertToDecimal(fraction){
return eval(fraction)
}

Where fraction is a fraction that you need converted to decimal? It can
be written like this:

function convertToDecimal(fraction){
var numerator = fraction.substring(0,fraction.lastIndexOf('/'))
var denominator = fraction.substring(fraction.lastIndexOf('/')+1)
return (numerator/denominator)
}

... or with .split("/") - but why last Index?
If that string is supplied from outside, then the case is already
covered as "not known at run time". Return.

Otherwise, no : it is not a good use of eval.

Evidently the argument 'fraction' is intended to be a string. But a
string is not a good way of representing a fraction internally. A
rational fraction should be represented as {Num:n; Den:d} or similar, or
as a case of {Typ:F; Num:n; Den:d}, or as a simple case of a structure
designed to hold general expressions (a tree for arithmetic notation; an
array or list for RPN).

It is only bad data design that makes the use of 'eval' seem appropriate
for that purpose.

It's a good idea to read the newsgroup c.l.j 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.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <pa****************************@yahoo.sp
am.me.not.com>, Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:50:01, Jeremy J Starcher
<r3***@yahoo.spam.me.not.composted:

>
Once again, I don't know Thomas personally, but I will say this. This
group needs him and people like him. They are the ones who remind us of
the edge cases. They are the ones who will remember weird interactions of
code and will spot flaws long before they become an issue.

No. There are enough other people here with adequate knowledge for the
purpose combined with acceptable manners - even if one disregards those
who write at excessive length.

TL's particular defects include an urge to answer as much as possible as
soon as possible (he probably apologises for his own errors-in-haste
more than anyone else here needs to); and, when he does give an
incisive, correct, and comprehensible answer, the more normal experts
will feel no need to add their own incisive, correct, and believed
comprehensible version.

TL must have the effect of driving out, through his arrogant nastiness,
many who would otherwise he helped by this group.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

[Anthony Levensalor]

Richard Cornford said:

So any discussion of indictors of bad code can validly mention the use
of try/catch because many specific patterns in its use are very
indicative of bad code.

I just want you to know I read the whole thing. Thanks for the
informative post.

~A!

[Randy Webb]

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 1/2/2008 7:14 AM:

In comp.lang.javascript message <4I*********************@giganews.com>,
Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:30:25, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.composted:

>Is this a good use of eval?
function convertToDecimal(fraction){
return eval(fraction)
}

Where fraction is a fraction that you need converted to decimal? It can
be written like this:

function convertToDecimal(fraction){
var numerator = fraction.substring(0,fraction.lastIndexOf('/'))
var denominator = fraction.substring(fraction.lastIndexOf('/')+1)
return (numerator/denominator)
}

... or with .split("/") - but why last Index?

Simple example. My second post about it, in reply to David, shows the
actual code I used in the post where I asked about this specific issue.

If that string is supplied from outside, then the case is already
covered as "not known at run time". Return.

Define "supplied from outside". The string is supplied as the value of a
select element.

Otherwise, no : it is not a good use of eval.

Evidently the argument 'fraction' is intended to be a string. But a
string is not a good way of representing a fraction internally.

It is when it is the value of a select element.

A rational fraction should be represented as {Num:n; Den:d} or similar, or
as a case of {Typ:F; Num:n; Den:d}, or as a simple case of a structure
designed to hold general expressions (a tree for arithmetic notation; an
array or list for RPN).

Or a simple string. KISS.

It is only bad data design that makes the use of 'eval' seem appropriate
for that purpose.

It isn't bad data design at all. When you need a number in two forms -
both decimal and fraction - and you choose which one to use where, the
best way is to keep the fraction as a string and convert it to decimal
when needed.

--
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 <8331b1ee-5f11-4391-bdc6-05d427912e5f@e2
6g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 1 Jan 2008 16:35:16, David Mark
<dm***********@gmail.composted:

Another reason to minify is
that compression (when available) will only reduce comment bulk,
whereas minification eliminates it.

ISTM wrong always to use something that eliminates all comment, even on
a fully-commercial page not intended to be read. Comment explaining the
code should be removed; but comment identifying the source and date can
be worth retaining.

Perhaps the language should be extended with a convention that comment
to end of line which starts ////, and/or other comment which starts /**
(and finishes **/ ?) should be retained by minification.

--
(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.

[The Magpie]

John W. Kennedy wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> a. The word you were looking for is _deprecated_, not "depreciated".

Actually, "depreciated" is the correct word.

Yes, it is, but that is a long-lost battle so can we please not fight
it again?

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <47**************@PointedEars.de>, Wed,
2 Jan 2008 15:13:24, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de>
posted:

>

Unfortunately, your From and Message-ID headers still violate Internet
standard STD11/RFC2822, sections 6.2/3.4 and 4.6.1/3.6.4. Please fix that.

Have you considered consulting a good craniotomist?

--
(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.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

[John W. Kennedy]

Gregor Kofler wrote:

John W. Kennedy meinte:

>>Wrong on all counts. You need to find yourself a better dictionary.
"Deprecate" means to belittle; "depreciate" means to reduce the value
of. The Latin *root* of "deprecate" means to pray to be protected
from, but that is not its English meaning, properly or otherwise.

ACK. Well, as a non-native speaker I don't have the insights of JWK... I
have to rely on dictionaries.

>That /is/ its English meaning -- its only English meaning until the
early 20th century when, as I said, some moron got the two words mixed
up. The fact that modern dictionaries perforce have to acknowledge the
mistake doesn't change that.

So what? Names, meanings, words have changed throughout centuries
because of errors in translation or simple typos. Being a percevtive
person, you've probably realised that the year is 2008. (You should move
to Iceland - their language hasn't changed over the last thousand years.
Well, at least only very slightly.)

I don't complain when someone uses the word "deprecate" to mean
"depreciate", because that battle was lost long ago.

But I /do/ complain when someone insists taking it further, and saying
that /only/ the mistaken use is permissible.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being
corrected."
-- G. K. Chesterton

[John W. Kennedy]

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <47***********************@cv.net>, "John W. Kennedy" <jw*****@attglobal.netwrote:

>Doug Miller wrote:

>>In article <47***********************@cv.net>, "John W. Kennedy"

<jw*****@attglobal.netwrote:

>>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
a. The word you were looking for is _deprecated_, not "depreciated".
Actually, "depreciated" is the correct word. Some moron about 75 years
ago decided that "deprecated" sounded more kewl, and got the two words
hopelessly confused. Properly, to deprecate something is to pray to be
protected from it, ee.g.:
Wrong on all counts. You need to find yourself a better dictionary.
"Deprecate" means to belittle; "depreciate" means to reduce the value of. The
Latin *root* of "deprecate" means to pray to be protected from, but that is
not its English meaning, properly or otherwise.

That /is/ its English meaning --

No, it's not. It may have been at one time, but that is not its meaning now.

....this proves nothing but that your reading is restricted.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"