jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties

Here they "grow" again:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clarification

"Using 1.7.2 and 1.8pre, whether you call .prop() or attr(), jQuery
will internally always actually use .prop for:

async, autofocus, autoplay, checked, controls, defer, disabled,
hidden, loop,
multiple, open, readonly, required, scoped, selected"

This is what's known as an "active" project. Basically, they fiddle
around with the logic behind the "simple" API forever. You never know
what to expect from one version to the next. This is largely caused by
flailing around trying to make the results match their confused
expectations. I call it a "never finished" project.

Though I didn't see this specific misstep coming, I knew from reading
the recently mentioned "attr vs. prop" discussion (for lack of a
better word) on StackOverflow (for lack of a better site) that they
were confused about how to handle boolean properties/attributes. I
just had no idea *how* confused. Here they've lumped all booleans (or
at least the ones they've heard of) into a single group for special
treatment (apparently starting with version 1.7.2).

The above is a partial list of attributes (left out ismap for one)
that are reflected as boolean properties. Two of them should stand out
as fundamentally different from the rest. The "checked" and "selected"
attributes are reflected by DOM properties with the "default" prefix
(e.g. "defaultChecked"). The reason for this is simple: user actions
may change the "checked" and "selected" properties and the DOM must
keep track of the default values of these attributes (e.g. to reset
forms). This is all spelled out very clearly in the DOM
specifications, which predate jQuery by several years (so much for
moving forward).

So, once again, in trying to dumb down interfaces that they themselves
don't understand, they've just made things more complicated for their
users. If they'd have bothered to *read* this example (as opposed to
just copying it into their repository for testing), they'd have
understood the basic concept of "attr" vs. "prop":

http://www.cinsoft.net/attributes.html

To be specific, they've created collisions where the DOM (and my
example) specifically avoided them.

Right:

$(el).prop('checked') == el.checked;
$(el).attr('checked') == el.defaultChecked;

Wrong:

$(el).prop('checked') == el.checked;
$(el).attr('checked') == el.checked;

Yes, the wrong version may indeed get the correct results in some
cases, which further confuses the issue. Obviously, if el.checked ==
el.defaultChecked, it doesn't matter which method is used (even a
broken clock is right twice per day).

The general attitude of jQuery users since the infamous attr/prop
split has been: why do we need two methods? The above comparison
should answer that question. But now, in their infinite wisdom, the
jQuery authors have now bypassed the split, but only for boolean
properties/attributes. This, of course, makes no sense at all.

A good example of when this is important is the case of a script that
needs to determine if the checked state of a checkbox has changed (by
the user of programmatically). In other words, is the control "dirty"?
This comes up all the time, for example, if one of the controls in a
form (or fieldset) has changed, an application may want to warn the
user before they navigate to another location and lose their changes.

That's the "getter" end of it. As for the "setter", this should set
the "checked" property to true:

$(el).prop('checked', true);

....And this should set the "defaultChecked" property to true:

$(el).attr('checked', 'checked');

....And this should set the "defaultChecked" property to false:

$(el).removeAttr('checked');

Unfortunately, that last one has never worked consistently, even
within their short list of "supported" browsers. More on that later.

The jQuery user need have no knowledge of the "defaultChecked"
property. That's the complication that should be abstracted away (as
opposed to shaved off).

The example use case for the "setter" is also common (and related to
the "getter" example). If a form is submitted via XHR and the request
succeeds, you would typically do this to update a checkbox to reflect
the newly updated data on the server:

el.defaultChecked = el.checked;

....Or in jQuery terms:

if ($(el).prop('checked')) {
  $(el).attr('checked', 'checked');
} else {
  // Note this will fail by throwing an exception in at least some
combinations of jQuery and IE versions.
  // Will cause an infinite loop in others. :(
  $(el).removeAttr('checked');
}

....But as of 1.7.2, the first branch will evaluate to a very costly
(in more ways than one) no-op. In other words, prior to 1.7.2, that
line would do something useful, but thereafter will do *nothing*
(other than waste time). As noted in the comments, nobody really knows
what the second branch will do (lot of variables to consider). Well,
this will hold true until they realize their latest goof and revert
it.

Who keeps track of all of these changes? As noted here, it's scary to
think what this will do to all of the plug-ins in the "jQuery
universe":

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5874652/prop-vs-attr/5876747

....Not to mention all of the existing sites and applications. Even the
famously naive jQuery enthusiasts smell a rat here. It's really hard
to miss, even without a solid frame of reference.

But wait, there's more. The "value" property is also subject to change
(by user or script), yet it has been left off the above convergence
list, likely due to the fact that it is not a boolean. Have a headache
yet? :)

$(el).prop('value') == el.value;
$(el).attr('value') != el.value;

Against all odds, it gets even worse (get out the aspirin). All of the
above jQuery examples are based on the rules introduced in 1.6, which
were clearly (loosely) based on the "attr" and "prop" functions found
in the above-mentioned attributes primer. Unfortunately for everybody
that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
here (literally the next day IIRC).

If only they would have asked, but then the CLJ "ban" was in effect.
These bumblers constantly screw up even the simplest DOM operations,
all the while warning their users to avoid the "trolls" in CLJ (who
most certainly have the answers the jQuery *authors* are desperately
seeking themselves). How stupid and self-defeating can you get? I
suppose that, years from now, when they finally figure this stuff out,
they won't have to share credit with those awful "trolls" that have
caused them so much grief over the years. :)

Obviously, they should have never changed the legacy "attr" method to
match mine. The very idea was lunacy (as I pointed out in my review).
The act of copying my code into their repository for testing was a
harbinger. Unfortunately, not known for reading comprehension, they
decided *not* to follow my advice for a fix that would preserve
backward compatibility with previous jQuery versions, while actually
simplifying this issue going forward. No, they reverted "attr" back to
its original confused logic (mixes up properties and attributes in a
maddening combinations that have proven unreliable, even in their
"supported" browsers) and left "prop" alone. This left them with a
broken "attr", the long-since busted "removeAttr" and a "prop" that
(presumably) works as intended. Now I know you have a headache, unless
you took my advice five years ago and avoided this miserable project
like the plague. ;)

The ongoing jQuery effort is clearly the most futile attempt to
simplify DOM manipulation since... well, it's really in a class by
itself in this dubious category. Not unexpected at all as to simplify
DOM manipulation, the authors would first need to understand the
basics of DOM manipulation, as well as common use cases. Reminds me of
the old Monty Python sketch about the botched English-Hungarian
phrasebook.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6D1YI-41ao&feature=player_detailpage

I will not use thees library. It ees botched. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6D1YI-41ao&feature=player_detailpage#t=240s

So how on earth is this brand name so popular? The answer is simple.
The primary users of the jQuery API are plug-in and widget authors.
They are just jumping on a brand name bandwagon, so they don't care if
the underlying script is a piece of junk. They put up with the endless
mix-ups because they know that Web developers will download their
widgets if they say "jQuery" on them. The widget developers abdicate
responsibility for the DOM to jQuery (come hell or high water) and the
Web developers abdicate responsibility for jQuery to the widget
developers. It's a two-tiered system of abdication; when things go
wrong it is easy enough to blame the next guy. The buck stops with
Resig, but relentless marketing has convinced virtually everybody
outside of this newsgroup that he's on the ball, so the blame is
passed on to the evil browsers and their indecipherable DOM
implementations. It was amusing five years ago (when IE 6/7 reigned),
but absolutely perverse today as it has never been easier to write
cross-browser code (degrading in the IE legacy versions as needed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-browser

The final (I hope) punchline is coming in early 2013 when they drop
all support for IE 8- (not a misprint, they really are lumping IE 8 in
with the previous versions) from the main branch. At that point, the
entire project becomes superfluous. Hopefully it will vanish quickly,
but realistically it will take years to scrape this mess off the Web
(see Prototype).
0
9/19/2012 5:57:15 AM
comp.lang.javascript 38069 articles. 17 followers. javascript4 (1315) is leader. Post Follow

30 Replies
264 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 1
On Sep 19, 1:57=A0am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here they "grow" again:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clari...
>
> "Using 1.7.2 and 1.8pre, whether you call .prop() or attr(), jQuery
> will internally always actually use .prop for:
>
> async, autofocus, autoplay, checked, controls, defer, disabled,
> hidden, loop,
> multiple, open, readonly, required, scoped, selected"
>
> This is what's known as an "active" project. Basically, they fiddle
> around with the logic behind the "simple" API forever. You never know
> what to expect from one version to the next. This is largely caused by
> flailing around trying to make the results match their confused
> expectations. I call it a "never finished" project.
>
> Though I didn't see this specific misstep coming, I knew from reading
> the recently mentioned "attr vs. prop" discussion (for lack of a
> better word) on StackOverflow (for lack of a better site) that they
> were confused about how to handle boolean properties/attributes. I
> just had no idea *how* confused. Here they've lumped all booleans (or
> at least the ones they've heard of) into a single group for special
> treatment (apparently starting with version 1.7.2).
>
> The above is a partial list of attributes (left out ismap for one)
> that are reflected as boolean properties. Two of them should stand out
> as fundamentally different from the rest. The "checked" and "selected"
> attributes are reflected by DOM properties with the "default" prefix
> (e.g. "defaultChecked"). The reason for this is simple: user actions
> may change the "checked" and "selected" properties and the DOM must
> keep track of the default values of these attributes (e.g. to reset
> forms). This is all spelled out very clearly in the DOM
> specifications, which predate jQuery by several years (so much for
> moving forward).
>
> So, once again, in trying to dumb down interfaces that they themselves
> don't understand, they've just made things more complicated for their
> users. If they'd have bothered to *read* this example (as opposed to
> just copying it into their repository for testing), they'd have
> understood the basic concept of "attr" vs. "prop":
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/attributes.html
>
> To be specific, they've created collisions where the DOM (and my
> example) specifically avoided them.
>
> Right:
>
> $(el).prop('checked') =3D=3D el.checked;
> $(el).attr('checked') =3D=3D el.defaultChecked;
>

A couple of clarifications. As mentioned, the jQuery examples are
based on their 1.6 hack job, but obviously just the "right" examples.
The "wrong" examples are based on their new take.

Regardless, the second example above is an oversimplification. Like
the primer they copied, their 1.6 "attr" returned only strings or
undefined. Actually, null in my examples; but I guess they wanted to
be (slightly) different.

$(el).attr('checked') =3D=3D el.defaultChecked ? 'checked' : undefined;

Something like that. I suppose the historical record is irrelevant at
this point as they reverted back to the hybrid "attr" (which returns a
boolean value for "checked") within days of my review of 1.6. Then
again, given the widespread abuse of these scripts, there's probably
people somewhere in the world upgrading from 1.6 to 1.6.1 as I write
this. If only Resig hadn't placed this newsgroup on the "banned"
list. :)

It really amazes me that jQuery users are so eager to "upgrade" every
time they see a new version. Do they think these things are like movie
sequels? I suppose, in a way, they are. They repeat the same basic
plot with minor tweaks and certainly get worse over time. But
programming and watching movies are very different things (newbs take
note of that). Swapping out foundation-level scripts on websites
requires a bit more consideration than trading in movies at the
mall. ;)
0
9/19/2012 10:21:56 AM
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 at 22:57:15, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark 
wrote:

   <snip>
>The final (I hope) punchline is coming in early 2013 when they drop
>all support for IE 8- (not a misprint, they really are lumping IE 8 in
>with the previous versions) from the main branch. At that point, the
>entire project becomes superfluous. Hopefully it will vanish quickly,
>but realistically it will take years to scrape this mess off the Web
>(see Prototype).

Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from 
buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).

   John
-- 
John Harris
0
john2010 (326)
9/19/2012 2:43:32 PM
On 9/19/2012 7:43 AM, John G Harris wrote:
> Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from
> buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).

No, David's just desperate for attention.

The jQuery 2.* release (which hasn't seen an alpha yet) strips a bunch 
of IE-focused code and won't support < IE9, while the 1.* branch will 
continue development in parallel, with the same APIs as the 2.* branch, 
and continue IE6+ support. Developers decide which version fits their 
needs. It's not quite as controversial as David wants it to sound.

It's worth noting... "Earlier this week Google Apps announced that 
they�ll soon drop support for Internet Explorer 8, the most up-to-date 
version of Microsoft�s web browser available on XP. After November 15, 
anyone trying to access Gmail, Google Calendar, or Google Docs/Drive 
from IE8 will see a message recommending that they upgrade their browser."
0
anon (312)
9/19/2012 3:33:53 PM
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:57:15 -0700 (PDT), David Mark wrote:

>Here they "grow" again:
>
>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clarification
>...

Have you ever thought of writing a jQuery-compatible kQuery?
(:-)

I guess there could be money in this too. Unless, of course,
jQuery then copies your code.

Hans-Georg
0
9/19/2012 3:34:19 PM
On Sep 19, 10:44=A0am, John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 at 22:57:15, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark
> wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0<snip>
>
> >The final (I hope) punchline is coming in early 2013 when they drop
> >all support for IE 8- (not a misprint, they really are lumping IE 8 in
> >with the previous versions) from the main branch. At that point, the
> >entire project becomes superfluous. Hopefully it will vanish quickly,
> >but realistically it will take years to scrape this mess off the Web
> >(see Prototype).
>
> Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from
> buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).

Yes, they really are that ignorant. Notice that I said "from the main
branch" though. They are freezing 1.9 and will ostensibly mirror all
changes to the new 2.x branch in 1.9. So you can just pick whichever
version "suits your needs". I can't explain it further or I'll start
laughing uncontrollably. :)

See their press release (and subsequent public outcry).
0
9/19/2012 6:20:33 PM
On Sep 19, 11:33=A0am, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 7:43 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>
> > Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from
> > buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).
>
> No, David's just desperate for attention.

Spoken like somebody who doesn't know me from Adam. I think "S.T." is
following me around again. :)

>
> The jQuery 2.* release (which hasn't seen an alpha yet) strips a bunch
> of IE-focused code and won't support < IE9, while the 1.* branch will
> continue development in parallel,

And, uh... LOL. Can't take it. What's wrong with *that* picture (hint:
re-read my OP). ;)

> with the same APIs as the 2.* branch,
> and continue IE6+ support.

That they have yet to get anywhere close to write. In over five years
of near constant development. :(

> Developers decide which version fits their
> needs.

LOL. One version falls apart in unpredictable ways in IE 8- (and
compatibility modes). The other is the SOS that... well, see my
reviews over the years.

> It's not quite as controversial as David wants it to sound.

What I "want" is neither here nor there.

http://blog.jquery.com/2012/06/28/jquery-core-version-1-9-and-beyond/

This one opens with:

"Please check out the followup post before jumping to the wrong
conclusion."

http://blog.jquery.com/2012/07/01/jquery-1-9-and-2-0-tldr-edition/

If you think that sounds defensive, read on. The jQuery community
(save for shills) is definitely upset about splitting the project in
two (as well they should be).

The whole idea is nuts; but, as predicted, the split was inevitable
(they had nowhere else to go). Two branches when they can't even keep
plug-ins in sync with one branch? The "jQuery Universe" is going to
get messier in 2013 and beyond, simply because jQuery is not a cross-
browser script (as has been noted numerous times over the years).

>
> It's worth noting... "Earlier this week Google Apps announced that
> they=92ll soon drop support for Internet Explorer 8, the most up-to-date
> version of Microsoft=92s web browser available on XP. After November 15,
> anyone trying to access Gmail, Google Calendar, or Google Docs/Drive
> from IE8 will see a message recommending that they upgrade their browser.=
"

I did note that on Twitter (and had a good laugh). Have you forgotten
Google's long incompetent relationship with browser scripting? They
are certainly not a good concern to emulate. In other words, if Google
does it, you should think twice about whether it is a really good
idea. In this case, it shouldn't take much thought, unless you are
completely clueless about this stuff. (?)
0
9/19/2012 6:32:36 PM
On Sep 19, 11:34=A0am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
georgNoEmailPle...@michna.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:57:15 -0700 (PDT), David Mark wrote:
> >Here they "grow" again:
>
> >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clari...
> >...
>
> Have you ever thought of writing a jQuery-compatible kQuery?
> (:-)

Not really. My Library has a set of jQuery-like interfaces that
demonstrate how trivial they are to implement. It's fairly
comprehensive, wrapping most of the API functions. One difference is
that it does not use a single constructor to abstract such wildly
different objects as windows, document and elements.

E =3D one element
Q =3D one or more elements (query result or array)
D =3D document
W =3D window

Then there are a couple that inherit from E:

I =3D image
C =3D control (inputs)

See the TaskSpeed tests for examples of how those are used.

>
> I guess there could be money in this too. Unless, of course,
> jQuery then copies your code.

There's no money in giving away free scripts. That's why they sell T-
shirts and support services.

Currently, I'm the "executive producer" of this project, which is more
like what I had envisioned for My Library at the start:

https://github.com/rassie/jessie

There are about a dozen developers working on it and I know of one
huge concern in Europe that is already using it (despite its infancy).
Perhaps I'll sell support services for that effort in the future. In
the meantime, I do mostly consulting and training, occasionally
revisiting the book when I get a breather.

And, believe it or not, posting here is still a great way to get
leads. I sure don't do this for my health alone. :)
0
9/19/2012 6:44:02 PM
On Sep 19, 2:44=A0pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 11:34=A0am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
>
> georgNoEmailPle...@michna.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:57:15 -0700 (PDT), David Mark wrote:
> > >Here they "grow" again:
>
> > >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clari.=
...
> > >...
>
> > Have you ever thought of writing a jQuery-compatible kQuery?
> > (:-)
>
> Not really. My Library has a set of jQuery-like interfaces that
> demonstrate how trivial they are to implement. It's fairly
> comprehensive, wrapping most of the API functions. One difference is
> that it does not use a single constructor to abstract such wildly
> different objects as windows, document and elements.
>
> E =3D one element
> Q =3D one or more elements (query result or array)
> D =3D document
> W =3D window
>
> Then there are a couple that inherit from E:
>
> I =3D image
> C =3D control (inputs)
>
> See the TaskSpeed tests for examples of how those are used.
>
>
>
> > I guess there could be money in this too. Unless, of course,
> > jQuery then copies your code.
>
> There's no money in giving away free scripts. That's why they sell T-
> shirts and support services.
>

Oh, and advertising. Did you know that My Library is now brought to
you in part by Big Fish Games? :)

http://www.bigfishgames.com/

A New Game Every Day.
0
9/19/2012 7:16:37 PM
On Sep 19, 2:32=A0pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 11:33=A0am, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/19/2012 7:43 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>
> > > Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from
> > > buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).
>
> > No, David's just desperate for attention.
>
> Spoken like somebody who doesn't know me from Adam. I think "S.T." is
> following me around again. :)
>
>
>
> > The jQuery 2.* release (which hasn't seen an alpha yet) strips a bunch
> > of IE-focused code and won't support < IE9, while the 1.* branch will
> > continue development in parallel,
>
> And, uh... LOL. Can't take it. What's wrong with *that* picture (hint:
> re-read my OP). ;)
>
> > with the same APIs as the 2.* branch,
> > and continue IE6+ support.
>
> That they have yet to get anywhere close to write. In over five years
> of near constant development. :(

Right, not write. Sorry, laughing too hard to pay attention.

Two branches, "continued" IE6+ (presumably means IE 8-) support, and
uh... Sorry, can't do this. :)
0
9/19/2012 7:23:55 PM
On Sep 19, 6:21=A0am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:57=A0am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here they "grow" again:
>
> >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clari...
>
> > "Using 1.7.2 and 1.8pre, whether you call .prop() or attr(), jQuery
> > will internally always actually use .prop for:
>
> > async, autofocus, autoplay, checked, controls, defer, disabled,
> > hidden, loop,
> > multiple, open, readonly, required, scoped, selected"
>
> > This is what's known as an "active" project. Basically, they fiddle
> > around with the logic behind the "simple" API forever. You never know
> > what to expect from one version to the next. This is largely caused by
> > flailing around trying to make the results match their confused
> > expectations. I call it a "never finished" project.
>
> > Though I didn't see this specific misstep coming, I knew from reading
> > the recently mentioned "attr vs. prop" discussion (for lack of a
> > better word) on StackOverflow (for lack of a better site) that they
> > were confused about how to handle boolean properties/attributes. I
> > just had no idea *how* confused. Here they've lumped all booleans (or
> > at least the ones they've heard of) into a single group for special
> > treatment (apparently starting with version 1.7.2).
>
> > The above is a partial list of attributes (left out ismap for one)
> > that are reflected as boolean properties. Two of them should stand out
> > as fundamentally different from the rest. The "checked" and "selected"
> > attributes are reflected by DOM properties with the "default" prefix
> > (e.g. "defaultChecked"). The reason for this is simple: user actions
> > may change the "checked" and "selected" properties and the DOM must
> > keep track of the default values of these attributes (e.g. to reset
> > forms). This is all spelled out very clearly in the DOM
> > specifications, which predate jQuery by several years (so much for
> > moving forward).
>
> > So, once again, in trying to dumb down interfaces that they themselves
> > don't understand, they've just made things more complicated for their
> > users. If they'd have bothered to *read* this example (as opposed to
> > just copying it into their repository for testing), they'd have
> > understood the basic concept of "attr" vs. "prop":
>
> >http://www.cinsoft.net/attributes.html
>
> > To be specific, they've created collisions where the DOM (and my
> > example) specifically avoided them.
>
> > Right:
>
> > $(el).prop('checked') =3D=3D el.checked;
> > $(el).attr('checked') =3D=3D el.defaultChecked;
>
> A couple of clarifications. As mentioned, the jQuery examples are
> based on their 1.6 hack job, but obviously just the "right" examples.
> The "wrong" examples are based on their new take.
>
> Regardless, the second example above is an oversimplification. Like
> the primer they copied, their 1.6 "attr" returned only strings or
> undefined. Actually, null in my examples; but I guess they wanted to
> be (slightly) different.
>
> $(el).attr('checked') =3D=3D el.defaultChecked ? 'checked' : undefined;
>
> Something like that. I suppose the historical record is irrelevant at
> this point as they reverted back to the hybrid "attr" (which returns a
> boolean value for "checked") within days of my review of 1.6. Then
> again, given the widespread abuse of these scripts, there's probably
> people somewhere in the world upgrading from 1.6 to 1.6.1 as I write
> this. If only Resig hadn't placed this newsgroup on the "banned"
> list. :)
>
> It really amazes me that jQuery users are so eager to "upgrade" every
> time they see a new version. Do they think these things are like movie
> sequels? I suppose, in a way, they are. They repeat the same basic
> plot with minor tweaks and certainly get worse over time. But
> programming and watching movies are very different things (newbs take
> note of that). Swapping out foundation-level scripts on websites
> requires a bit more consideration than trading in movies at the
> mall. ;)

Left off one other twist to this convoluted tale. The "attr" method is
supposed to work with both HTML and XML DOM's (XML from XHR results,
not XHTML of course). That's always been one of its biggest handicaps
as it led to code that must first distinguish between the two types of
DOM's (impossible to do reliably) and then process them in completely
different ways. This is partly to blame for the lack of maintenance on
that method as, despite being brief, it is virtually impossible to
follow (and what comments exist are as confusing as the code).

If you read through the "support" discussions regarding "attr" vs.
"prop", you'll find that nobody from the jQuery side mentioned this
issue at all. In short, they just keep saying "use prop" for "most"
cases. Obviously, "prop" won't work XML at all. It's almost as if they
don't know what their own code is designed (using that term loosely)
to do. (?)
0
9/19/2012 7:47:22 PM
On Sep 19, 1:57=A0am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The final (I hope) punchline is coming in early 2013 when they drop
> all support for IE 8- (not a misprint, they really are lumping IE 8 in
> with the previous versions) from the main branch. At that point, the
> entire project becomes superfluous. Hopefully it will vanish quickly,
> but realistically it will take years to scrape this mess off the Web
> (see Prototype).

For more information:

https://gist.github.com/3445646
0
9/19/2012 7:51:29 PM
> $(el).prop('value') == el.value;
> $(el).attr('value') != el.value;

The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read the 
docs, man :)

> Unfortunately for everybody
> that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
> here (literally the next day IIRC).

The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)

There are logistical issues to altering an API on a library with 
millions of users. It's much easier on a library with a user base I can 
count using my fingers - a luxury your library has enjoyed for half a 
decade. :)

http://ejohn.org/blog/jquery-16-and-attr/ :)
0
anon (312)
9/19/2012 9:26:56 PM
On Sep 19, 5:26=A0pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> > $(el).prop('value') =3D=3D el.value;
> > $(el).attr('value') !=3D el.value;
>
> The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read the
> docs, man :)
>
> > Unfortunately for everybody
> > that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> > reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
> > here (literally the next day IIRC).
>
> The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)

Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",
but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
problems were first outlined.

I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
"magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
is all of your noise in aid of?

http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html

Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
all of my comments. :(

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/a=
195f1fff1975ca0/5cee91ec32a72bc2

You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
evidence that it ever took place. I suspect your comment is also along
these lines (i.e. trying to obscure the obvious facts). You simply
can't accept the fact that your chosen brand of browser scripts is so
heavily influenced by my work. Get over it and perhaps re-think your
whole view of the history behind these machinations.

> There are logistical issues to altering an API on a library with
> millions of users.

Yes, thanks for that. That's roughly what I told Timmy when they
changed the "attr" method instead of deprecating it and creating some
new method to handle attributes properly (something they still lack to
this day). It's ironic that a CSS selector query engine would try to
get by without proper attribute-handling code, but that's basically
the story of "Sizzle".

> It's much easier on a library with a user base I can
> count using my fingers - a luxury your library has enjoyed for half a
> decade. :)

Even easier when you design and build it right from the start and
therefore don't have to keep changing tacks. ;)

>
> http://ejohn.org/blog/jquery-16-and-attr/:)

That just shows Resig is a transparent and disingenuous twit. He
didn't even think to thank me for all of my contributions. The idea
that you would use that to somehow support your... well, you don't
really have any arguments, do you? :)
0
9/19/2012 9:59:25 PM
On Sep 19, 5:59=A0pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:26=A0pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> > > $(el).prop('value') =3D=3D el.value;
> > > $(el).attr('value') !=3D el.value;
>
> > The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read th=
e
> > docs, man :)
>
> > > Unfortunately for everybody
> > > that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> > > reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed the=
m
> > > here (literally the next day IIRC).
>
> > The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)
>
> Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
> result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",
> but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
> testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
> participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
> problems were first outlined.
>
> I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
> numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
> specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
> initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
> "magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
> cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
> eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
> is all of your noise in aid of?
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html
>
> Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
> blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
> he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
> whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
> few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
> all of my comments. :(
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/th...
>
> You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
> evidence that it ever took place.

Update, on clicking the link to Timmy's explanation of the attr/prop
split, I ended up on his home page. So he has since deleted the entire
post (or is simply an incompetent Web developer). :(

Furthermore, that guy is a major contributor to jQuery, along with
other well-known buffoons like light-saber guy and Resig. These are
not just bad programmers. These are truly *stupid* (not to mention
dishonest) people. I should know as I've spent years coaching them and
they still can't figure out where they are going wrong. They just plod
along, year after year, on the same stupid course, occasionally
hurling insults at people who are genuinely trying to help them (to
help the Web). Then again, give them a break as I think they are all
in their twenties, so their brains are still trying to develop. :)

No sensible business would want anything to do with a software project
like this (and run by such obvious frauds). It's really that simple
(painful as it may be to swallow).

You may not like me for saying so (and I really don't care), but it's
not me that's lying to you. See if you can count the number of
misleading statements on the front page of the jQuery site. If you
can't spot any then you need to do some (real) due diligence (and
reading blog posts by jQuery fans doesn't count).
0
9/19/2012 10:13:38 PM
On Sep 19, 5:59=A0pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:26=A0pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> > > $(el).prop('value') =3D=3D el.value;
> > > $(el).attr('value') !=3D el.value;
>
> > The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read th=
e
> > docs, man :)
>
> > > Unfortunately for everybody
> > > that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> > > reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed the=
m
> > > here (literally the next day IIRC).
>
> > The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)
>
> Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
> result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",
> but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
> testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
> participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
> problems were first outlined.
>
> I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
> numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
> specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
> initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
> "magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
> cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
> eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
> is all of your noise in aid of?
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html
>
> Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
> blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
> he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
> whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
> few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
> all of my comments. :(
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/th...
>
> You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
> evidence that it ever took place. I suspect your comment is also along
> these lines (i.e. trying to obscure the obvious facts). You simply
> can't accept the fact that your chosen brand of browser scripts is so
> heavily influenced by my work. Get over it and perhaps re-think your
> whole view of the history behind these machinations.
>
> > There are logistical issues to altering an API on a library with
> > millions of users.
>
> Yes, thanks for that. That's roughly what I told Timmy when they
> changed the "attr" method instead of deprecating it and creating some
> new method to handle attributes properly (something they still lack to
> this day). It's ironic that a CSS selector query engine would try to
> get by without proper attribute-handling code, but that's basically
> the story of "Sizzle".
>
> > It's much easier on a library with a user base I can
> > count using my fingers - a luxury your library has enjoyed for half a
> > decade. :)
>
> Even easier when you design and build it right from the start and
> therefore don't have to keep changing tacks. ;)
>
>
>
> >http://ejohn.org/blog/jquery-16-and-attr/:)
>
> That just shows Resig is a transparent and disingenuous twit. He
> didn't even think to thank me for all of my contributions. The idea
> that you would use that to somehow support your... well, you don't
> really have any arguments, do you? :)

Hmmm. Also shows that he has no idea what his script does (or did).

"In jQuery 1.5.2, and older, in order to access a DOM property you
would have to do something like this:

var elem =3D $("#foo")[0];
if ( elem ) {
  index =3D elem.selectedIndex;
}"

Like hell. The original "attr" returned (mostly) property values in an
HTML DOM (and attribute values in an XML DOM). I (among others)
explained this to him years before he wrote this.

Too much. :(
0
9/19/2012 10:28:42 PM
On 9/19/2012 2:59 PM, David Mark wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:26 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
>>> $(el).prop('value') == el.value;
>>> $(el).attr('value') != el.value;
>>
>> The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read the
>> docs, man :)
>>
>>> Unfortunately for everybody
>>> that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
>>> reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
>>> here (literally the next day IIRC).
>>
>> The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)
>
> Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
> result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",

That's quite a leap of faith! Sadly, I doubt this is true :(

> but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
> testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
> participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
> problems were first outlined.
>
> I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
> numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
> specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
> initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
> "magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
> cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
> eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
> is all of your noise in aid of?
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html
>
> Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
> blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
> he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
> whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
> few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
> all of my comments. :(
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/a195f1fff1975ca0/5cee91ec32a72bc2
>
> You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
> evidence that it ever took place. I suspect your comment is also along
> these lines (i.e. trying to obscure the obvious facts). You simply
> can't accept the fact that your chosen brand of browser scripts is so
> heavily influenced by my work. Get over it and perhaps re-think your
> whole view of the history behind these machinations.

Other than your insistence that this is true, there's nothing here that 
backs up your claims. They *did* revisit an ill-advised design decision 
of attempting to normalize attributes and properties into one function 
for ease of API. Your rants were the reason for that eventual decision? 
That seems very, very unlikely. :(

If it's credit you're after, and you seem to be complaining about that 
more and more, you should produce something people find useful. So they 
can credit you with it. You might have gotten some credit for helping in 
this case, but according to the thread you threatened legal action so 
they weren't able to use anything of yours that would have helped. So 
you didn't receive credit. Because you didn't actually help. That's how 
these things work. :(


0
anon (312)
9/19/2012 10:30:17 PM
On Sep 19, 6:29=A0pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 2:59 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 5:26 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> >>> $(el).prop('value') =3D=3D el.value;
> >>> $(el).attr('value') !=3D el.value;
>
> >> The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read t=
he
> >> docs, man :)
>
> >>> Unfortunately for everybody
> >>> that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> >>> reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed the=
m
> >>> here (literally the next day IIRC).
>
> >> The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)
>
> > Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
> > result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",
>
> That's quite a leap of faith! Sadly, I doubt this is true :(

It's not a leap of faith; it's been quite well-documented (by me, Matt
Kruse, several other jQuery enthusiasts, as well as Resig himself).
All you have to do is follow my links and *read*.

And sadly, your doubts are not my concern.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
> > testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
> > participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
> > problems were first outlined.
>
> > I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
> > numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
> > specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
> > initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
> > "magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
> > cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
> > eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
> > is all of your noise in aid of?
>
> >http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html
>
> > Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
> > blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
> > he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
> > whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
> > few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
> > all of my comments. :(
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/th...
>
> > You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
> > evidence that it ever took place. I suspect your comment is also along
> > these lines (i.e. trying to obscure the obvious facts). You simply
> > can't accept the fact that your chosen brand of browser scripts is so
> > heavily influenced by my work. Get over it and perhaps re-think your
> > whole view of the history behind these machinations.
>
> Other than your insistence that this is true, there's nothing here that
> backs up your claims.

Except a seemingly endless "paper" trail. Again, *read* the
discussions, starting all the way back in 2007.

> They *did* revisit an ill-advised design decision
> of attempting to normalize attributes and properties into one function
> for ease of API.

Yes, four years later after numerous discussions that referenced my
articles criticizing this very design decision. Again, many of these
discussions took place in jQuery's own group. The fact that you refuse
to go back and look at them tells me you are just trying to obfuscate
the issue. Why is anyone's guess. My diagnosis is cognitive
dissonance. You might seek a professional opinion about that
though. ;)

> Your rants were the reason for that eventual decision?

Your characterization of my painfully detailed analyses of "attr" as
"rants" speaks volumes. Your brain just can't cope with reality (or
you simply don't understand the so-called rants at all).

> That seems very, very unlikely. :(

You seem very, very clueless about... well, everything. :(

>
> If it's credit you're after, and you seem to be complaining about that
> more and more, you should produce something people find useful.]

I am not after anything here, except for correcting your BS
assertions. Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
of my contributions to jQuery, Dojo and many other such efforts. You
just seem to live in your own little world. :)

> So they
> can credit you with it. You might have gotten some credit for helping in
> this case, but according to the thread you threatened legal action so
> they weren't able to use anything of yours that would have helped.

You just don't get it. They copied my material without my permission.
They certainly *read* at least some of it before they decided it was
worth trying to lift. And this was *long* after the fact anyway. As
mentioned, the first review in 2007 is what brought the issue to their
attention.

> So
> you didn't receive credit. Because you didn't actually help. That's how
> these things work. :(

Again, I don't think you understand how *anything* works. Your whole
online existence seems to revolve around trying to discredit me. Think
about that. ;)
0
9/19/2012 11:01:39 PM
On Sep 19, 6:29=A0pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 2:59 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 5:26 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> >>> $(el).prop('value') =3D=3D el.value;
> >>> $(el).attr('value') !=3D el.value;
>
> >> The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read t=
he
> >> docs, man :)

Missed this comment before. I suggest you read the ten tons of
comments on the previously cited jQuery blog post related to the
"value" attribute/property (and not one mention of "val"). Perhaps the
docs are unclear on this matter. At the very least, the jQuery
community is (predictably) quite confused about all of this stuff (as
are you).
0
9/19/2012 11:03:58 PM
On 9/19/2012 4:01 PM, David Mark wrote:

> Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
> of my contributions to jQuery

Um, no. You seem to hypothesize that you've been a driving force behind 
changes to the most popular library out there but there are very few, if 
any, who would agree with you. Sorry bro.  :(

> Dojo

I recall reading your contributions to Dojo in the past, on their 
mailing list. Very amusing stuff. :)

Are we done yet?
0
anon (312)
9/20/2012 12:09:44 AM
On Sep 19, 8:09=A0pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 4:01 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
> > Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
> > of my contributions to jQuery
>
> Um, no. You seem to hypothesize that you've been a driving force behind
> changes to the most popular library out there but there are very few, if
> any, who would agree with you. Sorry bro. =A0:(

There are very few that have a clue what goes on inside that script
and behind the scenes of its development. Certainly *you* are not on
that list. But, among those who bother to *read* the history, the
origin of the "attr"/"prop" split (and subsequent flailing rewrites)
is quite clear. Among those who don't, there's certainly a sneaking
suspicion (where there's smoke and all). But you alone remain
oblivious.

And no need to apologize. Your approval is hardly necessary.

>
> > Dojo
>
> I recall reading your contributions to Dojo in the past, on their
> mailing list. Very amusing stuff. :)

Indeed, you certainly are a die-hard fan of my works. If you
understood the discussions and their ramifications, you should have
found them amusing. They mangled attributes and properties in much the
same way as jQuery and also failed to fix them in a timely manner due
to a culture entrenched in guesswork and misunderstanding. They
couldn't even express what they thought their "attr" method was
supposed to do (suspect they copied it from jQuery or vice versa). Un-
declaring all of their globals to make their code "faster" and using
synchronous XHR to load scripts were also amusing bits.

You might also like this:

https://gist.github.com/2845842

Yes, that's right. The so-called "AMD" architecture is undisputedly
based on my rewrite of the Dojo loader. Go ahead, claim that you can't
see it. James Burke tried the same thing, right there in the thread
where he lifted it. He certainly couldn't fool me, but you seem
deluded enough to buy in to such obvious fantasy. :)

>
> Are we done yet?

I certainly hope so. :)
0
9/20/2012 12:23:37 AM
On Sep 19, 1:57=A0am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here they "grow" again:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clari...
>
> "Using 1.7.2 and 1.8pre, whether you call .prop() or attr(), jQuery
> will internally always actually use .prop for:
>
> async, autofocus, autoplay, checked, controls, defer, disabled,
> hidden, loop,
> multiple, open, readonly, required, scoped, selected"
>
> This is what's known as an "active" project. Basically, they fiddle
> around with the logic behind the "simple" API forever. You never know
> what to expect from one version to the next. This is largely caused by
> flailing around trying to make the results match their confused
> expectations. I call it a "never finished" project.
>
> Though I didn't see this specific misstep coming, I knew from reading
> the recently mentioned "attr vs. prop" discussion (for lack of a
> better word) on StackOverflow (for lack of a better site) that they
> were confused about how to handle boolean properties/attributes. I
> just had no idea *how* confused. Here they've lumped all booleans (or
> at least the ones they've heard of) into a single group for special
> treatment (apparently starting with version 1.7.2).
>
> The above is a partial list of attributes (left out ismap for one)
> that are reflected as boolean properties. Two of them should stand out
> as fundamentally different from the rest. The "checked" and "selected"
> attributes are reflected by DOM properties with the "default" prefix
> (e.g. "defaultChecked"). The reason for this is simple: user actions
> may change the "checked" and "selected" properties and the DOM must
> keep track of the default values of these attributes (e.g. to reset
> forms). This is all spelled out very clearly in the DOM
> specifications, which predate jQuery by several years (so much for
> moving forward).
>
> So, once again, in trying to dumb down interfaces that they themselves
> don't understand, they've just made things more complicated for their
> users. If they'd have bothered to *read* this example (as opposed to
> just copying it into their repository for testing), they'd have
> understood the basic concept of "attr" vs. "prop":
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/attributes.html
>
> To be specific, they've created collisions where the DOM (and my
> example) specifically avoided them.
>
> Right:
>
> $(el).prop('checked') =3D=3D el.checked;
> $(el).attr('checked') =3D=3D el.defaultChecked;
>
> Wrong:
>
> $(el).prop('checked') =3D=3D el.checked;
> $(el).attr('checked') =3D=3D el.checked;
>

One other clarification to avoid confusion. The concept of right and
wrong (and "attr" vs. "prop") throughout is based on jQuery's
(somewhat ambiguously) stated design goals, not the design of the
functions in the Attributes primer. This is one reason why it was so
absurd for Resig to copy my functions into his repository for testing.
As I told him (or one of his buddies) at the time, they were not
*exactly* what he needed to make sense out of his "attr" method
(though the code certainly contained all of the answers).

In short, as stated at the top of the primer, my example functions,
which were written with testing in mind, are interested in the
document's canonical form, therefore they specifically exclude user
data.

This is also true of the getAttribute and getAttributeProperty
functions found in My Library. They both do basically the same thing,
with one retrieving (normalized) string and the other more convenient
property values and always by *attribute* name (e.g. "for" not
"htmlFor", "class" not "className"). User data is always excluded as
there are other functions for retrieving that (similar jQuery's "val"
method). There's no ambiguity or overlap between these functions, each
has a specific job to do and none of them have been modified in years.
Good thing as such functions are the foundation of any DOM
manipulation library, so changing them has a very good chance of
disrupting not only higher-level functions within the library (e.g.
queries) but calling applications.

On the other hand, if your code needs to reference a property value by
property name, simply reference it:

var checked =3D el.checked;
var value =3D el.value;
var defaultValue =3D el.defaultValue;

Easy, reliable, compatible in virtually every browser ever made and no
function call overhead. You can't beat properties (unless you view
them through a "magic" prism like jQuery).

Don't see any need to provide an API function to do that. Might be
handy to add one to the E and Q prototypes, but that's left as a
(trivial) exercise.
0
9/20/2012 3:13:00 AM
On Sep 19, 8:09=A0pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 4:01 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
> > Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
> > of my contributions to jQuery
>
> Um, no. You seem to hypothesize that you've been a driving force behind
> changes to the most popular library out there but there are very few, if
> any, who would agree with you. Sorry bro. =A0:(
>

Now that my "bro" has (hopefully) scuttled off, here are some links
that provide insight into the history of jQuery development, with
regard to attributes, properties, feature detection (and more!) :)

My proxy (Matt Kruse) makes yet another impassioned pitch for them to
pay attention to the difference between attributes and properties:

https://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev/browse_thread/thread/baef5e91bd7=
14033

....that one references the Attributes primer and shows Resig clumsily
copying the code and then trying to test jQuery with it (despite it
being inappropriate for use with jQuery as is).

Bizarre SELECT hack:

https://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev/browse_frm/thread/fe658871a8bff2=
08/bb0d17776314606a?lnk=3Dgst&q=3Dbroken+select#bb0d17776314606a

"After some discussion with colleagues, a better approach has been
identified." Uh, colleague (singular) as I recall. At least part of
that eventually made it into jQuery as a patch. I remember as my buddy
Matt begrudgingly gave me credit as an "official" jQuery contributor
at that point. :)

Here's their original reaction to the first review from back in 2007.
Yeah, they don't appear influenced at all. :)

https://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev/browse_frm/thread/bc0ce94f8b9672=
24/92767115a8cf78a8?#92767115a8cf78a8

Towards the end:

"P.S. In his recent posts over on c.l.j he's actually been much more
down
to earth and given specific examples of what's wrong and even one
detailed description on his approach to one of the issues.
*ducks for cover*"

The "detailed description" he refers to is the very test that enabled
them to ditch a critical bit of browser sniffing and put them on the
road to (attempted) feature testing/detection. I know Resig had never
heard of an attribute reflection test at this time (neither had Peter
Michaux as I recall). In fact, this test is undisputedly my invention
as there's never been any evidence that such a test was used prior to
my introducing it in 2007. As a side note, it's a big part of
Modernizr (sp?) as well, but I'll give credit to their authors for
honestly acknowledging my influence (on Twitter IIRC). There'd sure be
no Modernizr without that pattern.

Hell, it's clear from his code (and confusion) that Resig didn't know
attributes from properties at all at that time. This is the now
infamous "magic flag" that he wanted so he could eliminate the browser
sniffing in the "attr" function. And yes, he copied it. It showed up a
year later, virtually verbatim, in version 1.3. He didn't read it
(along with dozens of his team members), discuss it in his forum,
forget all about it and then invent it himself a year later. ;)

That's just one of several discussions that occurred between members
of the jQuery team, in their own developer forum in the months that
followed the 2007 review. Not coincidentally, this is also about the
time My Library was first published, but I'm sure they simply ignored
it, just like the review. IIRC, Resig indicated he really wanted to
see "my perfect library" in the review thread. He saw such a thing as
a yeti. Five years later and the yeti has certainly been spotted,
alive and well. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D6RexQLrcqwc&feature=3Dplayer_detailpage#t=
=3D43s

The CLJ thread referenced throughout the jQuery developer discussion:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/4=
15949d1bcce6e6a/03c4d326340e7f7d?#03c4d326340e7f7d

Reaction from Richard Cornford regarding the 1.3 transformation that
followed a year later:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/8ee3b684baaa0baa

One from CLJ that was referenced in one of the above-mentioned jQuery
forum posts:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/d2c0=
407a7fc2e33a/

Was a real pain digging these up (forgot they were in the jQuery *dev*
group, not the main one). As a side note, jQuery's new forum is broken
beyond belief in Chrome. Words can't express how broken; every click
(or navigation) is an adventure and many of the imported legacy posts
are full of broken markup. Another sound move on their part. :)

Now, if history holds, "S.T." will shut up at this point and then pop
up to voice his, uh "skepticism" a month from now as if he has a case
of amnesia. He's like some sort of obsessed stalker who wants to make
sure that his heroes gets credit that they clearly do not deserve.
Some life. :(
0
9/20/2012 5:17:44 AM
On 20/09/2012 10:09 AM, S.T. wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 4:01 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
>> Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
>> of my contributions to jQuery
>
> Um, no. You seem to hypothesize that you've been a driving force behind
> changes to the most popular library out there but there are very few, if
> any, who would agree with you. Sorry bro.  :(
>
>> Dojo
>
> I recall reading your contributions to Dojo in the past, on their
> mailing list. Very amusing stuff. :)
>
> Are we done yet?

DM obviously understands js better than most. He posts links to 
discussions, code, and other references in support of his statements yet 
you reply with argumentum ad hominem. Do you believe your replies make 
you look a winner?

Andrew Poulos

0
ap_prog (388)
9/20/2012 5:47:05 AM
On Sep 20, 1:47=A0am, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/09/2012 10:09 AM, S.T. wrote:
>
> > On 9/19/2012 4:01 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
> >> Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
> >> of my contributions to jQuery
>
> > Um, no. You seem to hypothesize that you've been a driving force behind
> > changes to the most popular library out there but there are very few, i=
f
> > any, who would agree with you. Sorry bro. =A0:(
>
> >> Dojo
>
> > I recall reading your contributions to Dojo in the past, on their
> > mailing list. Very amusing stuff. :)
>
> > Are we done yet?
>
> DM obviously understands js better than most. He posts links to
> discussions, code, and other references in support of his statements yet
> you reply with argumentum ad hominem.
>

Thanks for the kind words. I want to clarify one point though: lots of
people know JS better than I do (I just tend to stick with what I
know). Of course, history says I understand DOM scripting better than
most (certainly better than anybody associated with the jQuery
project). I ought to as I learned from Cornford's examples (which are
sadly not available on the Web today). It's interesting that many of
those examples were already fairly old in 2007.

It's just that the bloggers of the Ajax era completely ignored such
examples and set about reinventing the wheels, making all of the same
old mistakes from the turn of the century (e.g. browser sniffing).
They all but ignored (and often joked about) this newsgroup as some
sort of "irrelevant" antique. Clearly the joke was on them as the
answers they needed were here all along. :)

In five years of "campaigning" here (and elsewhere), I'm sure I have
influenced the development of a lot of "popular" libraries, though NIH
syndrome prevents most of the authors from acknowledging that
influence (they prefer to hurl insults like "troll"). Resig is one of
the most disingenuous of the lot and has even expressed that he
"hates" me. He won't even say my name (referring to me as "that guy"
who "attacked" him while he was "feeding the trolls"). What a complete
asshole. I'm quite happy to shred whatever is left of his reputation
(he's been a laughingstock among serious JS developers for years).
When you are a public figure, you have to expect public criticism. But
clowns like him think they are somehow immune.

Now, I know that their emotional reactions (or non-reactions as the
case may be) are due to the controversial nature of my posts. As I
stated back at the "beginning", I knew my somewhat caustic criticism
would piss of the self-proclaimed rock stars of the Ajax era. However,
as much of the information was old hat, I knew that the volume needed
to be turned way up for anyone to hear me over the bloggers. Most (if
not all) have gotten the message by now and the honest ones admit
that. Their fans are clueless, so instead of congratulating me on my
machinations moving browser scripting forward, they parrot their troll-
spotting idols. :(

> Do you believe your replies make
> you look a winner?

If so, he's even stupider than he sounds. But his psyche is his own
problem; I just try to correct his near-constant flow of
misinformation regarding jQuery, me, etc. He can spew his crap
elsewhere, but it will *never* fly here. Nothing more pathetic than an
anonymous jackass; it's as if he knows he is full of shit (and perhaps
he does).
0
9/20/2012 6:16:24 AM
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:09:49 -0700, "S.T." <anon@anon.com> wrote:

>On 9/19/2012 4:01 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
>> Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
>> of my contributions to jQuery
>
>Um, no. You seem to hypothesize that you've been a driving force behind 
>changes to the most popular library out there but there are very few, if 
>any, who would agree with you. Sorry bro.  :(
>
>> Dojo
>
>I recall reading your contributions to Dojo in the past, on their 
>mailing list. Very amusing stuff. :)
>
>Are we done yet?

     Could you point to a comp.lang.javascript post of yours where you
have been the slightest help at all?  If not, go away.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
0
genew (1214)
9/20/2012 5:20:25 PM
On 9/19/2012 10:17 PM, David Mark wrote:
> Now, if history holds, "S.T." will shut up at this point and then pop
> up to voice his, uh "skepticism" a month from now as if he has a case
> of amnesia.

No such luck. :)

Your whole premise is ridiculous. You've spent an extraordinary amount 
of time pretending to prove a mirage.

jQuery's attr() and prop() methods are not constructed in the manner you 
would have - you make that clear every couple days. Virtually nothing in 
jQuery has been done in a manner you find acceptable. You've made that 
clear virtually daily, in one venue or another, for the past *five* years.

Yet now you claim that the jQuery team is secretly following your, 
err... 'suggestions'. This despite the fact for five years they've 
disregarded the overwhelming majority of things you've said, and those 
few instances where they've revisited things you've (correctly) 
screeched should be revisited, and should be revisited (incorrectly) 
immediately, these few instances occur literally years after the fact. 
And yet, somehow, you seem to really believe your input has a real 
bearing in their design process.

You don't think they're making these fixes because *it's how the DOM 
actually works* and low-priority bugs with backwards compatibility 
concerns to an a user base in the hundreds of thousands and tens of 
millions of websites can take time to fix. But rather you claim they're 
*really* making these changes because you're telling them too but they 
don't really want to though they know they should, so they hold off 
until you finally embarrass them into making the changes you're calling 
behind the scenes.

It's freaking crazy man.
0
anon (312)
9/20/2012 5:41:24 PM
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:41:08 PM UTC-4, S.T. wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 10:17 PM, David Mark wrote:
>=20
> > Now, if history holds, "S.T." will shut up at this point and then pop
>=20
> > up to voice his, uh "skepticism" a month from now as if he has a case
>=20
> > of amnesia.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> No such luck. :)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Your whole premise is ridiculous. You've spent an extraordinary amount=20
>=20
> of time pretending to prove a mirage.

If you say so.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> jQuery's attr() and prop() methods are not constructed in the manner you=
=20
>=20
> would have - you make that clear every couple days.

No, they clearly tried to take my advice, but predictably botched the job.

> Virtually nothing in=20
>=20
> jQuery has been done in a manner you find acceptable.

That's the first true statement you've made in this thread.

> You've made that=20
>=20
> clear virtually daily, in one venue or another, for the past *five* years=
..

Again, if you say so. :)

>=20
>=20
>=20
> Yet now you claim that the jQuery team is secretly following your,=20
>=20
> err... 'suggestions'.

It's clearly no secret (see links).

[snip redundant blithering]


>=20
>=20
>=20
> You don't think they're making these fixes because *it's how the DOM=20
>=20
> actually works*

WRT to "attr", it should be clear who showed them how the "DOM actually wor=
ks" (among other things).

> and low-priority bugs with backwards compatibility=20
>=20
> concerns to an a user base in the hundreds of thousands and tens of=20
>=20
> millions of websites can take time to fix.

You simply aren't paying attention. For one, "attr" is part of their founda=
tion and used by virtually every jQuery script out there. So not a low prio=
rity. And two, the extant "attr" is not consistent, even in the browsers th=
ey claim to support. And finally, as I've recommended repeatedly, they just=
 needed to deprecate (and eventually remove) that method. They could have d=
one that five years ago and certainly had serviceable methods by now. Unfor=
tunately, they aren't paying close attention either.

[more blithering]

>=20
>=20
>=20
> It's freaking crazy man.

Dave's not here, man. Go away. :)
0
9/20/2012 6:00:29 PM
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 at 10:41:30, in comp.lang.javascript, S.T. wrote:
>On 9/19/2012 10:17 PM, David Mark wrote:

  <snip>
>Yet now you claim that the jQuery team is secretly following your,
>err... 'suggestions'. This despite the fact for five years they've
>disregarded the overwhelming majority of things you've said, and those
>few instances where they've revisited things you've (correctly)
>screeched should be revisited, and should be revisited (incorrectly)
>immediately, these few instances occur literally years after the fact.
>And yet, somehow, you seem to really believe your input has a real
>bearing in their design process.
  <snip>

Not only that, but when the JQuery people eventually admit that JQuery
is far too slow to load then *I* shall claim the credit for persuading
them.

Equally, when web designers admit that having different releases of
JQuery on the same web site is a maintenance disaster then I shall claim
the credit for making them aware of this.

  John
-- 
John Harris
0
john2010 (326)
9/21/2012 8:19:00 AM
On Sep 21, 4:19=A0am, John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 at 10:41:30, in comp.lang.javascript, S.T. wrote:
> >On 9/19/2012 10:17 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
> =A0 <snip>>Yet now you claim that the jQuery team is secretly following y=
our,
> >err... 'suggestions'. This despite the fact for five years they've
> >disregarded the overwhelming majority of things you've said, and those
> >few instances where they've revisited things you've (correctly)
> >screeched should be revisited, and should be revisited (incorrectly)
> >immediately, these few instances occur literally years after the fact.
> >And yet, somehow, you seem to really believe your input has a real
> >bearing in their design process.
>
> =A0 <snip>
>
> Not only that, but when the JQuery people eventually admit that JQuery
> is far too slow to load then *I* shall claim the credit for persuading
> them.

Have you mentioned that to them? You might have company there. :)

Anyway, I don't really persuade, I make the issues so public that they
have no choice but to confront them. Though I suppose the blatant
feature testing ripoffs were a matter of "persuasion" (followed by
plagiarism). That one didn't take "literally years" to happen. :(

>
> Equally, when web designers admit that having different releases of
> JQuery on the same web site is a maintenance disaster then I shall claim
> the credit for making them aware of this.
>

Hard to believe anyone would do that (though I've seen it on
occasion). Just goes to show that some designers are completely
oblivious to the ramifications of pasting in random scripts.
0
9/21/2012 1:29:12 PM
On Sep 21, 2:29=A0pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 4:19=A0am, John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Equally, when web designers admit that having different releases of
> > JQuery on the same web site is a maintenance disaster then I shall clai=
m
> > the credit for making them aware of this.
>
> Hard to believe anyone would do that (though I've seen it on
> occasion). Just goes to show that some designers are completely
> oblivious to the ramifications of pasting in random scripts.

I have experienced that also. It wasn't the nicest mess to clear up :(
0
9/21/2012 2:08:48 PM
Reply:
Similar Artilces:

Anyone still not upgrading from 97?
Checking back for discussions, there was a lot of talk about 2000 being slower than 97, but not so much lately. What is the latest opinion? Anyone care to set up a poll for how many NG members are still using 97? 2000? I am slightly tempted to upgrade by a new client whose data is in 2000, but of course, I can just port it all back through Excel...right? and I guess I have seen a couple of nice features... still, how many changes do I have to make to code? Does anyone have a reference for converting code (declaring recordsets etc.) Whoops, I just noticed now that I can convert back to...

Visual C++ Dialog Box Properties Window Will Not Dock
I have MS VC++ version 8.0.50727.42 installed on Win XP 5.1 (SP3) with 3.14 GB RAM. Somehow I managed to get the properties window for my dialog box editor to float and I cannot see how to get it to dock again. I right click on the title bar and check "Dockable". (God forbid they have an option like "Dock Left" or "Dock right".) Then I drag it round the edges until until it is just about out of sight but it never docks. I have the same problem with the Toolbox window. Any help with getting these windows to dock would be greatly appreciated. Many ...

Encoding confusion
OSX 10.3.3. Suddenly, Mac and unix no longer shares the same encoding. That is, swedish characters typed in a unix app gets all wrong when the file is viewed in a Mac app, and vice versa. What could be causing this? Have I accidentally changed some settings? How do I fix it? -- Patrik Nyman patrik dot nyman at orient dot su dot se On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Patrik Nyman wrote: > OSX 10.3.3. Suddenly, Mac and unix no longer shares the same > encoding. That is, swedish characters typed in a unix app > gets all wrong when the file is viewed in a Mac app, and > vice versa. Make sure that...

E/R modeling: relationship's attributes
Hello, In Chen's Entity/relationship model, relationships too can have attributes. How should I represent these relationships in a database? In my view, if I represent these relationships' attributes as fields in a table, the relationship becomes a relation: an entity... Thanks for your insights Sticky Bit wrote: > Hello, > In Chen's Entity/relationship model, relationships too can have attributes. > > How should I represent these relationships in a database? In my view, if I > represent these relationships' attributes as fields in a table, the ...

Still no John D. Baker
This is really starting to worry me. He hasn't replied to any emails and (from the looks of things) hasn't been active on Usenet in nearly a month. Here's his webpage: http://mylinuxisp.com/~jdbaker/oldsite/ It has his email address on there as well. Someone needs to contact John and see if he's doing okay. It's not like him to not respond to emails. I've corresponded with him in the past without problem. He even sent me games for the CP/M mode of my Commodore 128. We'll see if he turns up. I hope so. Paul dunric wrote: > > This is really starting to wor...

Racha movie stills , wallpapers and photos #2
Racha Ram charan=92s photos is here. charan is looking new in the racha. he will show his 6pack and cherry was taken risky shots in shooting period. The director sampath nandi was told about ram charan =93 this racha movie will give big break to Telugu industry and ram charan acting is excellent in this film=94. ram charan fans also waiting for this movie. March 1st week racha will be released. http://www.racha-movie.com/racha-new-photos/ ...

can we use two foreign attribute in single module?
Hi, I am using fli code to send the input for and gate. and also i want to send the vhdl AndGate output to fli code in the same module..Here I am pasting my vhdl code entity and4 is port ( in1, in2 : in bit; out1 : out bit ); end; architecture only of and4 is attribute foreign : string; attribute foreign of only : architecture "and_gate_init ./gates.sl"; begin out1<=in1 and in2; end; -- -- -- entity testbench is end testbench; architecture a of testbench is component and4 port ( in1, in2 : in bit; out1 ...

access properties of parent widget in Tkinter
I am trying to get & set the properties of a widget's parent widget. What I have works, but seems like a long way around the block. First I get the widget name using w.winfo_parent(), then i convert the name to a reference using nametowidget(). self.nametowidget(event.widget.winfo_parent()).hasChanged= True It works, but I can't help but think I'm missing a more direct route. Am I? Bill William Gill wrote: > I am trying to get & set the properties of a widget's parent widget. > What I have works, but seems like a long way around the block. First I &...

Jar in classpath but still class not found
Sorry, this seems so obvious, but I can't find why it doesn't work. 1. Class MyPrinter in package mytest package mytest; public class MyPrinter { public void print(){ System.out.println("Hello!"); } } 2. Class PrintTest imports package mytest.MyPrinter and uses it. Note PrintTest is in default package. import mytest.MyPrinter; public class PrintTest { public static void main(String[] args) { MyPrinter ps = new MyPrinter(); ps.print(); } } I export the package mytest as a Printer.jar file: META-INF/MANIFEST.MF contains just: Manifest-Version: 1.0 Printe...

Parent instance attribute access
Hello, I have something weird going on, I have the following (simplified) : class MyFactory(..., ...): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): self.args = args self.kwargs = kwargs ... class MyXmlFactory(MyFactory): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): MyFactory.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs) #self.args = args #self.kwargs = kwargs ... def build(self, addr): p = self.toto(*self.args, **self.kwargs) when build is called I get this : exceptions.AttributeError: MyXmlFactory instance has no attribute 'args'...

Still no records
The new 8,5 release is coming - I'm wondering, why exactly records (structures) aren't introduced? Yes, I'm aware of several OO-related packages existence - and read about "L" - but wouldn't be very handy to have a possibility to define a record just "in standard Tcl"? Was it in some way against any Tcl rules? -- ZB Dnia 12.09.2007 miguel <msofer@users.sf.net> napisa�/a: >> The new 8,5 release is coming - I'm wondering, why exactly records >> (structures) aren't introduced? Yes, I'm aware of several OO-related >> packa...

JQuery.get()
The following code gets a text file on the system and displays it. I want to pull a file from a remote system,something like $.get("http://www.remotesytem.com/tmp/sf.txt"), but this doesn't work. What is the format on a remote URL when using the get() method? <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <script src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.js"></script> <script> $(document).ready(funct...

stored procedure calling sub-procedure with updlock select. How could I release the updatelog if sub-proc is finished (calling proc still running)?
Hi, -> Description (short): <------------------ stored procedure calling sub-procedure with updlock select. How could I release the updatelog if sub-proc is finished (calling proc still running)? MS SQL Server 2000. -> Description (longer): <------------------ I have a stored procedure (procA) for statistics that are summarized in a table (tableA). It's calling a sub-procedure (procB, via execute) to get a key token (ID) from another table (tableB). The file structure, fields or logic of table B cannot be modified by me. It's populated by a SAP system. - procA is ru...

jQuery Query about comparing jQuery references
There does not seem too be anyway to test if two jQuery references are the same element. Given :- ... <div id="1"></div> .... Then :- alert( $("#1") == $("#1")) return false. jQuery's eq does not seem to help either. jQuery's site seems overloaded and it being intermittent, so I would not look for help from there right now ! Aaron On Jul 25, 3:41 pm, Aaron Gray wrote: > There does not seem too be anyway to test if two jQuery > references are the same element. > > Given :- > > ... <div id="1"...

Help still needed w/ GenCartVic!
I've been able to narrow down the bug to the initlib sequence when the puts() function is used. I'm wondering if maybe the kernal's environment is not properly initiated. I'm using the following code to initialize the kernal: ----------------------------- sei cld ldx #$ff txs ;Run kernal setup routines. jsr $FD8D jsr $FD52 jsr $FDF9 jsr $E518 cli ;Set up BASIC env. jsr $E3A4 ----------------------- Any ideas? ...

1270 still viable?
I've had a 1270 forever and it's still giving me excellent service. But I'm wondering as to it's status in the larger scheme of things? Are many of them still being used? Epson is still selling the 1280 as a new model in the U.S. The outer plastic case has changed, but that's about it. If Epson were Canon they would call it a "brand new" model because the outer plastic case has changed. Epson has no other ink-based printer announced so far of this quality that can handle papers larger than 8.5 x12 inches. For reasons I cannot explain I have bot...

There is still time to...
Impeach! :) -- BU__SH__ On Jan 20, 12:00=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > Impeach! > > :) > > -- > BU__SH__ Yeah! Impeach that nigger on his first day in office!!!!! Impeach for not being human. He's a god damned monkey. Take up Arms!!! CIVIL WAR II is our only options. SLAUGTHER ALL LIBERALS WITH NO MERCY. STORM THE BASTILLE. THE STREETS MUST FLOW WITH THE BLOOD OF LIBERALS. "MuahMan" <muahman@gmail.com> stated in post ff6f69e5-1401-4c12-9d1c-d27dfc0439c2@r22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com on 1/20/09 10:06 AM: > On Jan...

Sheet Properties Prompt
I lost the ability to have the Sheet Properties selection screen available when I open a New Solid Works Document. This happened immediately after I saved a drawing template after making a minor change in Document Properties. Any idea on how to get the Sheet Property Prompt back. Thanks, Marty Marty wrote: > I lost the ability to have the Sheet Properties selection screen available > when I open a New Solid Works Document. This happened immediately after I > saved a drawing template after making a minor change in Document Properties. > Any idea on how to get the Sheet Pr...

archive attribute
Does the unix file system have an archive attribute that work similarly to the windows file archive attribute??? Thanks, What I am attempting to do is create a perl script that can do incremental backups of the file system in an efficient manner. If someone has a better approach please let me know. Thanks, Rich "RB" <wi@rjsolutions.org> wrote in message news:bnbn48$1jvg$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... > Does the unix file system have an archive attribute that work similarly to > the windows file archive attribute??? > > Thanks, > > In article <bnbo7c$1lgo$...

Still umlauts
Hi, does this no longer work? -------------------- #!/usr/bin/env ruby # -*- coding: UTF-8 -*- puts $KCODE puts "�������" -------------------- I tried it with Ruby 1.8.2 and 1.9, Debian Linux. What do I miss? Bertram -- Bertram Scharpf Stuttgart, Deutschland/Germany http://www.bertram-scharpf.de On 5/9/05, Bertram Scharpf <lists@bertram-scharpf.de> wrote: > Hi, > > does this no longer work? > > -------------------- > #!/usr/bin/env ruby > # -*- coding: UTF-8 -*- > > puts $KCODE > puts "�������" > -------------------- >...

Scrollbar calculation confusion
GTK2 CVS head. I have an independent x and y scrollbar I use to scroll a window. For some bizarre reason things don't seem to work as expected. Here's how I set it up, take the x values for example note: virtSize is the desired wxSize of the window to scroll around in, gw is the size of the window in pixels that going to be scrolled. int thumbX = 15; int rangeX = !need_Xscroll ? 0 : (virtSize.x + thumbX - 1)/thumbX; int pageX = gw / thumbX; int posX = m_gridOrigin.x/thumbX; m_horizScrollBar->SetScrollbar(posX, thumbX, rangeX, pageX); "Pos 0, virtSize 320,...

Northgate & Hemel (We're still here...)
Just a quick update on the UK Hemel Hempstead Oil Depot Explosion on Sunday and how it affected Northgate... Our Headquarters Office, being adjacent to the depot and receiving a direct blast, have been significantly damaged. However, the Northgate Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans were initiated and remote locations are being used to bring affected internal and external services back on-line. Being 06:00 on a Sunday morning only four staff were caught up in the blast. Thankfully, they received minor injuries and are now out of hospital. Please use your normal ...

LibreOffice in 2014: macro recording is still experimental... MS is doomed
Macro recording in Excel in 1994 was production ready and worked perfectly for me, every time. Hobbyist software can't compete. On 14-10-10 08:58 AM, DFS wrote: > Macro recording in Excel in 1994 was production ready and worked > perfectly for me, every time. > > Hobbyist software can't compete. ROFL. It's pretty sad to see unfortunately but hey, it's not a must-have feature for everyone. I don't use it myself. In fact, I used to disable it as a lot of malware developed for Office 97 required it. -- Silver Slimer OpenMedia Supporter Univ...

Why do I still see the 50Hz?
Hi. I created a band pass filter with the follow parameters. Yet, when I apply this to my signals, i still see the 50Hz noise. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks! Fs = 2048; N = 4; Fc1 = 4; Fc2 = 38; h = fdesign.bandpass('N,F3dB1,F3dB2', N, Fc1, Fc2, Fs); Hd = design(h, 'butter'); % butterworth filter y = filter(Hd, data); On Mar 7, 12:40=A0pm, "Marc Sean" <maa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi. > > I created a band pass filter with the follow parameters. Yet, when I appl= y this to my signals, i still see the 50Hz noise. Is there something I'm ...

Does anybody still use Clipper in 2006?
My employer required me to discontinue using Clipper 5.3 in the year 2000 in favour of MS-Visual Basic 6 with a MS-Access database. I will list some pro's and con's of this changeover. POSITIVE Visual Basic 6 contained a powerful and easy-to-use GUI screen builder that generated very attractive screen forms. Control of printers was handled by the operating system (MS-Windows) instead of within the application programs. No worries about printers connected to USB ports. No more refusals by the operating system (MS-Windows) to lend extra memory when required. NEGATIVE The VB6 sou...