Actually most of that site was written back in '98... and some of it predates even that, as back then it was the reference that Nyetscape pointed to. It dating to '98 and the most major updates dating from 2001 is fine if it's accurate, since HTML 4 was finalized when? 4.01 was finalized when?
Originally Posted by xelawho
Nothing wrong with something being old and not updated if there's no reason to do so. A lesson I wish the HTML 5-tards would learn. Change for change's sake is not improvement.
The laugh being what MDN is now is an attempt to recreate that.
The 'unless it generates body content' part kind-of proving my point, since adding elements to the DOM or using innerHTML is what exactly? That's right, generating body content.
It's a good reference, though I get a laugh out of how often people seem to magically treat words like "typically" or "generally" as "must". Good for a laugh
Constantly misquoting me and persisting in ridicule only shows you up to be the egocentric big <head>ed self righteous and pompous git.
Originally Posted by deathshadow
What I said is very valid and who made you the know it all on the subject of web development? I have pointed out before, not just to yourself but in general that we have a situation where you have people like the W3C, who I understand from reading your posts you hate or you at lease have some level of contempt for them and these stuffed ****s try to justify their jobs by making changes and these people are by no means the first or last compliance standards based entity to try and enforce a change on the developer world.
If you want to spew standards and lick compliance butt all day long, you be my guest, in fact you can also have my share as I stick my finger up to these pillocks.
Put it another way, its taken them 25 years to actually get some order with browser vendors who are too far up their own butt holes still to create compliant browsers and for once Microsoft is sat at the same table and not in an annex several miles down the road.
I praise HTML5 now its finally come out the closet, hopefully they will provide the much needed break away from having to use FLASH, something I personally hate because it is overly abused by sites that want to perform drive by's.
Yes, I know I'm about as subtle as being hit by a bus..(\\.\ Aug08)
Yep... I say it like I see it, even if it is like a baseball bat in the nutz... (\\.\ Aug08)
I want to leave this world the same way I came into it, Screaming, Incontinent & No memory!
I laughed that hard I burst my colostomy bag... (\\.\ May03)
Life for some is like a car accident... Mine is like a motorway pile up...
Problems with Vista? :: Getting Cryptic wid it. :: The 'C' word! :: Whois?
Which is funny since what you're advocating... isn't.
Originally Posted by \\.\
The same overhead as objects as anonymous functions are objects. So are you saying we shouldn't use objects either? What about globals?
Originally Posted by \\.\
I'll take that "whopping" size of any vars declared inside it not being automatically released over a lack of scope protection any day. Again, why add crap to the global namespace if you don't have to? That's the beauty of them! Particularly since you can use that to NOT add properties to DOM objects or waste time adding variables to the global scope. You want to talk memory use? At BEST it's a wash.
You seem to have had your head filled with a bunch of BS about anonymous functions; the laugh being it's been almost a decade since I last saw anyone making the same claims and it was as much a work of fiction then as it is today.
Wait... Reg? Is that you?
Hi every One,
Awesome dudes i really like your posts really its such a fabulous & glorious knowledge able posts for me and its increased my knowledge well ,
again thanks for share with me such a exceptional thoughts i am to much happy after part of your brilliant company:.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)