By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,742 Members | 2,026 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,742 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

FAQ Topic - What is the document object model? (2008-10-23)

P: n/a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What is the document object model?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the collection of objects provided by each browser.
Basically, any object in the window hierarchy is part of the
DOM. This means that ` document.writeln() `,
for example, is not an
ECMAScript method but is, in fact, a method provided by the DOM.
The DOM has been standardised by the World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C); however, like all W3C standards, browser support is not
yet complete. Most cross-browser coding problems come from
slightly different implementations of the DOM in the different browsers.

http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html#onlineResources

http://www.w3.org/DOM/faq.html

http://www.w3.org/DOM/
--
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 http://www.pair.com.

Oct 22 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
8 Replies


P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <48***********************@news.sunsite.
dk>, Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:00:02, FAQ server <ja********@dotinternet.be>
posted.

FAQ <http://jibbering.com/faq/index.htmlis full of links of the form
href='index.html#jScript'

That means that a saved copy of the FAQ has links which refer to
index.html in the directory in which it has been saved.

If those "index.html" were removed throughout, those links would refer
to the appropriate place in the saved FAQ.

The link href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html" should of
course remain.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/- see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
Oct 23 '08 #2

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In comp.lang.javascript message <48***********************@news.sunsite.
dk>, Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:00:02, FAQ server <ja********@dotinternet.be>
posted.

FAQ <http://jibbering.com/faq/index.htmlis full of links of the form
href='index.html#jScript'
And the "index.html" can be safely removed. And it will work in IE6.

That means that a saved copy of the FAQ has links which refer to
index.html in the directory in which it has been saved.

If those "index.html" were removed throughout, those links would refer
to the appropriate place in the saved FAQ.
Yep.

The link href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html" should of
course remain.
Yep.

Will apply changes.

Garrett

--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/ >
Oct 24 '08 #3

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
The link href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html" should of
course remain.
There is no good reason why. In fact, the "index.html" should be removed
according to W3C recommendations. The default document that is index.html
does not need to be and should not be explicitly referred to (e.g. in case
the technology behind it changes).

Where necessary, server-side redirection should be set up to keep existing
references to the FAQ working while promoting a new URI concept that
provides ways of referencing the FAQ and FAQ sections that are easier to
remember. Consider, for example, <http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/instead
of <http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes.html>.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Oct 24 '08 #4

P: n/a
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>The link href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html" should of
course remain.

There is no good reason why. In fact, the "index.html" should be removed
according to W3C recommendations. The default document that is index.html
does not need to be and should not be explicitly referred to (e.g. in case
the technology behind it changes).

Where necessary, server-side redirection should be set up to keep existing
references to the FAQ working while promoting a new URI concept that
provides ways of referencing the FAQ and FAQ sections that are easier to
remember. Consider, for example, <http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/instead
of <http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes.html>.
404
>
You probably meant to link to:
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html

The URI is not very memorable.

If any sort of URL rewriting were to be used, the documents' links
(anchors, css, et c) would all need full root <a href="cookies.html"so
to avoid 404.

PointedEars

--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/ >
Oct 25 '08 #5

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <49**************@PointedEars.de>, Fri,
24 Oct 2008 20:16:04, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de>
posted:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>The link href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html" should of
course remain.

There is no good reason why.
As is common, you have failed to understand the point, SpitzenOhren.

--
(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)
Oct 25 '08 #6

P: n/a
dhtml wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>The link href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html" should of
course remain.
There is no good reason why. In fact, the "index.html" should be removed
according to W3C recommendations. The default document that is index.html
does not need to be and should not be explicitly referred to (e.g. in case
the technology behind it changes).

Where necessary, server-side redirection should be set up to keep existing
references to the FAQ working while promoting a new URI concept that
provides ways of referencing the FAQ and FAQ sections that are easier to
remember. Consider, for example, <http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/instead
of <http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes.html>.

404
Right, the madness of it is even worse:

<http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html>
You probably meant to link to:
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
Right, the madness goes even further.
The URI is not very memorable.
One of my points exactly.
If any sort of URL rewriting were to be used, the documents' links
(anchors, css, et c) would all need full root <a href="cookies.html"so
to avoid 404.
I am talking about redirection, not rewrite; redirection would by itself not
need any changes in the source code at all (although once established, it
would be wise to use the new URIs instead).
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Oct 26 '08 #7

P: n/a
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn posted:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>The link href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html" should of
course remain.
There is no good reason why.

As is common, you have failed to understand the point, SpitzenOhren.
Maybe you should have found a better wording then, Doc. For the statement
as it is, is a bad recommendation.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
Oct 26 '08 #8

P: n/a
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
dhtml wrote:
>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
The link href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html" should of
course remain.
There is no good reason why. In fact, the "index.html" should be removed
according to W3C recommendations. The default document that is index.html
does not need to be and should not be explicitly referred to (e.g. in case
the technology behind it changes).
Yeah, I don't see why index.html should be there either.
>
I am talking about redirection, not rewrite; redirection would by itself not
need any changes in the source code at all (although once established, it
would be wise to use the new URIs
It might be better to have /faq/notes/ and have the current directory
redirect to that. I don't have access over the faq_notes directory.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL: http://jibbering.com/faq/ >
Oct 27 '08 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.