How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

[Julie]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Randy Webb wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Julie wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Randy Webb wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>Carlos Andr?s wrote:
> >>
> >>>This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
> >>>this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
> >>>mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.
> >>>
> >>>I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.
> >>
> >>No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
> >>intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for the
> >>web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.[/color]
> >
> >
> > He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.[/color]
>
> And he got an answer. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I said.[/color]

I did -- you technically gave an answer, but not to the question:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?"

Subject of this thread:

"How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"

Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the question.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If respondents could simply answer the question (presuming that they _have_ an
> > answer), and leave the critiques and advice for later, it sure would make it
> > easier to get _answers_ to questions.[/color]
>
> I never did any of the things you are *assuming* that I did. I made a
> statement which was the answer to his question, and then I asked a
> question of my own.[/color]

Please point where I specifically assume anything about you.

I was speaking generally about the respondents, collectively.

I don't need to assume, the information and facts are all here in the thread.

Again, please point where I've assumed anything.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is intranet,
> > internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific question, and respondents
> > felt that (for whatever reason) it was their prerogative to provide advice,
> > commentary, and critiques.[/color]
>
> Now thats where you are wrong. It *does* make a difference whether its
> for an intranet or internet application. Try writing code that can write
> to the file system and come back and tell me if you can do it on the
> internet and whether you can do it on an intranet where you know the
> browser to be IE with priveleges set to allow FileSystemObjec t access.[/color]

Within the context of the original question, intranet/internet is irrelevant
until brought into the discussion by the OP.

You need to be able to make the distinction that for some program domains,
inter/intra _is_ relevant, and others, it _isn't_.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Since it is an intranet app, go to each PC and edit the registry and
> >>remove the entry that deals with the browsers and the ability to
> >>shift-click to open a new window.
> >>
> >>And read the FAQ, with regards to posting, providing information, and
> >>posting replies (top-posting) and trimming.[/color]
> >
> >
> > Respondents: read the original question, and answer _THAT_.[/color]
>
> And to you: Go read my reply and READ it. While you are reading, you
> might want to read your own replies in this thread, with respect to the
> OP's question, and then look up the word "hypocrite" .[/color]

1) Done.
2) Done.
3) Done -- "professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or
possess; falseness". I make every attempt to not assume; I make every attempt
to answer the question _asked_ -- please tell me where you feel that I've
deviated from that. You may feel that my responses do not answer the OPs
question, and that is true, but I have not feigned that my responses were to
the OPs question.

[Richard Cornford]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Julie wrote:[color=blue]
> Randy Webb wrote:[/color]
<snip>[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.[/color]
>>
>> And he got an answer. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I
>> said.[/color]
>
> I did -- you technically gave an answer, but not to the question:
>
> "Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
> new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?"
>
> Subject of this thread:
>
> "How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"[/color]

The subject header of a Usenet post does not constitute a question
(regardless of any superficial similarities), as the FAQ explains.

The only statement in the original post that is terminated with a
question mark (and so unambiguously a question) is "Could anybody help
me?".
[color=blue]
> Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the
> question.[/color]
<snip>

Any response made to the only question literally asked in the original
post would qualify as an answer by implication. If any one is helpful
the answer is yes, otherwise no.

But why the obsession with answering the question asked? In most cases a
question asked is an attempt to solve a problem. Solving the problem is
usually more valuable than answering a question literally asked (and
many questions would warrant nothing more than "yes" or "no" as a
response if treated literally, which is not often actually helpful).

Randy's answer proposes that the problem has been miss-identified by the
OP and that the real problem is to be solved elsewhere on the system. A
conclusion that I, for one, concur with, as fixing the back-end both
removes the problem in this application and would encourage whoever
created it not the repeat the error in their next (assuming that the
individual responsible is made to fix the problem so they have to learn
how to do it).

Richard.

[Randy Webb]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Julie wrote:
[color=blue]
> Randy Webb wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Julie wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Randy Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Carlos Andr?s wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
>>>>>this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
>>>>>mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.
>>>>
>>>>No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
>>>>intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for the
>>>>web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.
>>>
>>>
>>>He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.[/color]
>>
>>And he got an answer. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I said.[/color]
>
>
> I did -- you technically gave an answer, but not to the question:[/color]

As Richard has pointed out, the only question in the *post* is "can
anybody help", so technically my answer should have been "yes".
[color=blue]
> "Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
> new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?"
>
> Subject of this thread:
>
> "How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"[/color]

You are "assuming" that I even read, or can even see, the subject of
this thread. I didn't. Remember this little point, it is referred to
later in this post.

[color=blue]
> Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the question.[/color]

Because my experience, not assumptions, tell me that when someone is
trying to prevent a new window, then the problem lies elsewhere. My
experience also tells me that you can NOT stop me from opening a new
window from a webpage, I don't care what script you put in the page. Its
simply a matter of me hitting Shift-Control-N and getting a new Tab. Or,
right clicking and choosing "Duplicate" from the menu in Opera.

If an application has a problem with it being opened in a new window,
which makes it open in 2 windows at once, then the problem lies with the
application, not the duplicate window. That deduction (not assumption)
verifies my original answer.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>If respondents could simply answer the question (presuming that they _have_ an
>>>answer), and leave the critiques and advice for later, it sure would make it
>>>easier to get _answers_ to questions.[/color]
>>
>>I never did any of the things you are *assuming* that I did. I made a
>>statement which was the answer to his question, and then I asked a
>>question of my own.[/color]
>
>
> Please point where I specifically assume anything about you.[/color]

Read above. And, the simple fact that you are replying to my post
implies that you are referring to me. If you are referring to someone
else, then reply to them. Otherwise, I have no choice but to decide that
you are referring to me.
[color=blue]
>
> I was speaking generally about the respondents, collectively.[/color]

Then why did you quote me, answer inter-leaved in my response?
[color=blue]
> I don't need to assume, the information and facts are all here in the thread.[/color]

You should read it all again then. Nowhere in any of my posts in this
thread have I assumed anything, and you have. At least 3 times. They are
listed again at the end of this post.
[color=blue]
> Again, please point where I've assumed anything.[/color]

See above for the first, below for the others.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is intranet,
>>>internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific question, and respondents
>>>felt that (for whatever reason) it was their prerogative to provide advice,
>>>commentary , and critiques.[/color]
>>
>>Now thats where you are wrong. It *does* make a difference whether its
>>for an intranet or internet application. Try writing code that can write
>>to the file system and come back and tell me if you can do it on the
>>internet and whether you can do it on an intranet where you know the
>>browser to be IE with priveleges set to allow FileSystemObjec t access.[/color]
>
>
> Within the context of the original question, intranet/internet is irrelevant
> until brought into the discussion by the OP.[/color]

It is very relevant, and let me give you an example where it *does*
matter. When I go to work, the intranet that I work with is very
specific with regards to OS and Browser. There is a manual that is
approximately 250 pages long that explains how we set up every single
terminal on the intranet (100,000+ terminals). Everything from the color
of the desktop all the way down to the default settings for the
browsers, and including whether the user has access to change any of
these settings (they don't). So, I know beyond any doubt what I can or
can not do on the intranet. If I write an app that prevents a new
window, and manage to get it to work on the intranet, the second I put
it on the web, it will cease to "work" anymore because I no longer have
that control over the browser settings. So yes, it is *very* relevant
whether its an inter/intra-net application before the OP every brings it
in.

[color=blue]
> You need to be able to make the distinction that for some program domains,
> inter/intra _is_ relevant, and others, it _isn't_.[/color]

And for this one, it is *very* relevant.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>Since it is an intranet app, go to each PC and edit the registry and
>>>>remove the entry that deals with the browsers and the ability to
>>>>shift-click to open a new window.
>>>>
>>>>And read the FAQ, with regards to posting, providing information, and
>>>>posting replies (top-posting) and trimming.
>>>
>>>
>>>Respondent s: read the original question, and answer _THAT_.[/color][/color][/color]

Here, you are replying to what I said. That implies that it is,
partially, directed at me. What you failed to realize is that the
recommendation that I offered does indeed work in an intranet
environment, but you are more than welcome to try to change the settings
in the registry on the PC I am on at the moment.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>And to you: Go read my reply and READ it. While you are reading, you
>>might want to read your own replies in this thread, with respect to the
>>OP's question, and then look up the word "hypocrite" .[/color]
>
>
> 1) Done.[/color]

Then you obviously read where I gave a solution to the problem, and its
the only *viable* solution on an internet site, and very possible on an
intranet site.
[color=blue]
> 2) Done.[/color]

Then you see where you are doing nothing to answer the OP, yet you are
complaining about other people not answering the OP? Thats one
definition of the word hypocrite, where its a "do as I say, not as I do"
scenario.
[color=blue]
> 3) Done -- "professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or
> possess; falseness". I make every attempt to not assume; I make every attempt
> to answer the question _asked_ -- please tell me where you feel that I've
> deviated from that. You may feel that my responses do not answer the OPs
> question, and that is true, but I have not feigned that my responses were to
> the OPs question.[/color]

1) You assumed I made an assumption when I did not.
2) You assumed I read the subject line while replying, I did not. Nor do
I even care what the subject was. I seldom do.
3) You are assuming that I have not answered the OP, when I did. Two
different methods in fact. The first is for an internet based app, the
second was for an intranet based app. Although the first solution is the
best for either scenario.

None of my answers have been based on an assumption of any kind, they
have been based on my experience and what I read in a post.


--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Julie]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Randy Webb wrote:
<snip>[color=blue]
> That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
> quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
> ramifications either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
> mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
> posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
> I would have had to write a full book...[/color]

If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
the OP.

For example:

"There is no simple answer to the question you asked. Please provide more
context so that we/I can better address your issue(s). Such information such
as {this} and {that}... would be helpful to know before answering."

Unfortunately, the response:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window."

started a subthread that for the most part completely ignored the OP.

[kaeli]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

In article <c8fs820j1p@new s2.newsguy.com> , newsgroups@matt kruse.com
enlightened us with...[color=blue]
>
> On the contrary, I contribute quite a lot here (often emailed responses, I
> might add)[/color]

Is that like having a girlfriend in Canada?

*grins*

I'm playing - don't get all mad, now. *heh*

--
--
~kaeli~
He often broke into song because he couldn't find the key.

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Lee]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Julie said:[color=blue]
>
>Randy Webb wrote:
><snip>[color=green]
>> That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
>> quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
>> ramifications either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
>> mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
>> posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
>> I would have had to write a full book...[/color]
>
>If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
>appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
>the OP.[/color]

Posters rarely post enough information. It would not be reasonable
to ask each one for all of the information they may have left out.
It is much more efficient to answer the question as well as possible
with the given amount of information and making reasonable assumptions
about what is left out. That will answer the question most of the
time, and will be sufficient to prompt the OP to provide the missing
important pieces in most of the other cases.

It is not reasonable to insult the OP based on assumptions about
missing information, but it is reasonable to point out that what
they are doing seems to be a bad idea.


[color=blue]
>Unfortunatel y, the response:
>
>"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
>new window."
>
>started a subthread that for the most part completely ignored the OP.[/color]

The fact that it ignored the OP doesn't detract from its value.
The OP received several answers.

[Matt Kruse]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Lee wrote:[color=blue]
> Posters rarely post enough information. It would not be reasonable
> to ask each one for all of the information they may have left out.
> It is much more efficient to answer the question as well as possible
> with the given amount of information and making reasonable assumptions
> about what is left out. That will answer the question most of the
> time, and will be sufficient to prompt the OP to provide the missing
> important pieces in most of the other cases.[/color]

In general, I'm not sure I agree with this.
Doesn't it then train users to be lazy in asking their questions?
They'll think, "I'll just ask this, they'll know what I mean, and someone
will give me an answer that works."

I've found that in supporting my own code and answering hundreds of
"support" emails, that it's often a waste of time to guess at the problem
and provide a potential answer. Instead, I often simply respond with
something like, "Did you look at X? In order to answer your question, you
need to provide me with the full html of your page (preferrably a url), a
description of what you expect to happen, and a detailed description of what
you actually observe."

Many times, while the person is gathering the information to meet my
"requiremen ts" they solve their own problem. And if they don't, I then have
all the information I really need in order to fully answer their question.
If they aren't willing to be more descriptive, I ignore them, because if
they aren't willing to invest time in asking a good question, then I'm not
willing to invest time in giving them a good answer.

I sometimes refer people to a post made almost 10 years ago from
comp.lang.perl which addresses the general, common problem of people not
knowing how to ask questions: http://perl.plover.com/Questions.html

There are two keys to getting good answers:
1) Asking the right people
2) Asking the right questions

People definitely need to be trained in #2, and shouldn't be allowed to "get
off easy" by asking sloppy questions and getting good answers from people
who happened to guess correctly about what their problem really was. IMO. :)

--
Matt Kruse
Javascript Toolbox: http://www.mattkruse.com/javascript/

[Lee]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Matt Kruse said:[color=blue]
>
>Lee wrote:[color=green]
>> Posters rarely post enough information. It would not be reasonable
>> to ask each one for all of the information they may have left out.
>> It is much more efficient to answer the question as well as possible
>> with the given amount of information and making reasonable assumptions
>> about what is left out. That will answer the question most of the
>> time, and will be sufficient to prompt the OP to provide the missing
>> important pieces in most of the other cases.[/color]
>
>In general, I'm not sure I agree with this.
>Doesn't it then train users to be lazy in asking their questions?
>They'll think, "I'll just ask this, they'll know what I mean, and someone
>will give me an answer that works."
>
>I've found that in supporting my own code and answering hundreds of
>"support" emails, that it's often a waste of time to guess at the problem
>and provide a potential answer. Instead, I often simply respond with
>something like, "Did you look at X? In order to answer your question, you
>need to provide me with the full html of your page (preferrably a url), a
>description of what you expect to happen, and a detailed description of what
>you actually observe."[/color]

Yes, I wasn't clear. There are many cases when the poster
just doesn't include enough information, or has left some
particular vital piece of information.

But, as in the case that started this thread, we can often
make reasonable assumptions, based on years of answering
similar questions.

[Richard Cornford]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Matt Kruse wrote:
<snip>[color=blue]
> On the contrary, I contribute quite a lot here (often
> emailed responses, I might add)[/color]

So you contribute to the group by sending people personal e-mails? That
is not actually a contribution to the group, and will not influence the
tone of the group in any way. Contributions to the group are posted to
the group, anything else is just unrelated activity.

It also seems to carry the same associated problems as multi-posting, in
that contributors to the group have no way of knowing whether you have
already posted a response to any given question, what that response was,
and so do not know when they may be completely wasting their time
repeating explanations that the OP has already received from you. I
would not consider wasting the time of contributors to the group as a
contribution to the group, even if you are not letting on that your are
doing so.

It also deprives the OP of the advantages of having the responses they
get considered by the contributors to the group in general, so that any
issues arising from any individual suggestion can be pointed out. Being
made aware of issues allows people to make informed decisions about how
they can mitigate or avoid them and the more collective experience
available to identify issues the fewer will go unmentioned.
[color=blue]
> and in the form of my web site,[/color]

Your web site is not a contribution to this group, any more than not
posting to the group is a contribution to the group.
[color=blue]
> which I think is much more beneficial and helpful than random
> 1000-line followups to newsgroup posts telling people about
> some perfect ideal way to develop code, yet never seeming
> to demonstrate those practices in real-world situations.[/color]

So what are your criteria for "real-world situation"?
[color=blue]
> And although you are quite vocal about things like dynamic select
> lists and how they are evil and a good solution isn't really
> possible, you have your "solution" up at
> http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/examp...nt_select.html
> which arguably ignores many issues one would need to address when
> creating such a solution.[/color]

You may not be in a position to appreciate it but I base my statements
about javascirpt on more than just opinion. Prior to concluding that the
dependent select list concept cannot be satisfactorily implemented
exclusively with client-side scripting I have had a go at seeing if and
how the issues can be addressed. You will also find that I tend to
discourage the use of pop-up windows because of the issues arising from
pop-up blocking software, but a google search of the archives will also
reveal that the most complete scripts designed to open new windows while
handling those issues were written and posted by me. And similarly, when
an experiment demonstrates that something can be implemented
satisfactorily I post that code and express that opinion.

<snip>[color=blue]
> ... . I've opened the door several times for critiques of
> my ideas and code, and you've refused to participate in an
> exchange of ideas, ...[/color]
<snip>

As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
flaw, and you do not even see them as an issue, there is not much point
in my spending any time sorting out the misconceptions, inefficiencies
and general shortcomings of your code, as the best outcome could be no
more than a bad concept well implemented. But if you want your code
critiqued you only have to start posting it to the group, as someone is
likely to comment on anything you post and I am a very long way from
being the only contributor to this group who would be able to suggest
improvements to your code.

Richard.

[Randy Webb]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Julie wrote:
[color=blue]
> Randy Webb wrote:
> <snip>
>[color=green]
>>That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
>>quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
>>ramificatio ns either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
>>mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
>>posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
>>I would have had to write a full book...[/color]
>
>
> If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
> appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
> the OP.[/color]

No, a referral to the FAQ, where that is explained, is a better response.

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3

Paragraph 2.
[color=blue]
> For example:
>
> "There is no simple answer to the question you asked. Please provide more
> context so that we/I can better address your issue(s). Such information such
> as {this} and {that}... would be helpful to know before answering."
>
> Unfortunately, the response:
>
> "Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
> new window."
>
> started a subthread that for the most part completely ignored the OP.[/color]

No, it started a sub-thread that, in your opinion, ignored the OP.
Perhaps you should re-read the entire thread, from the OP's standpoint,
and see just how much has been said with regards to his problem. Then,
it begs to ask just what his problem was, and the #1 problem with the
original post was a lack of information.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Julie]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Randy Webb wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Julie wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Randy Webb wrote:
> > <snip>
> >[color=darkred]
> >>That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
> >>quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
> >>ramificatio ns either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
> >>mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
> >>posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
> >>I would have had to write a full book...[/color]
> >
> >
> > If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
> > appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
> > the OP.[/color]
>
> No, a referral to the FAQ, where that is explained, is a better response.
>
> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3
> Paragraph 2.[/color]

These are _not_ mutually exclusive options.

end.

[Matt Kruse]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Richard Cornford wrote:[color=blue]
> So you contribute to the group by sending people personal e-mails?
> That is not actually a contribution to the group, and will not
> influence the tone of the group in any way.[/color]

I don't send technical responses/answers. Rather, advice on how to ask
better questions on how to rephrase posts to be more productive.
So, your criticisms don't really apply.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> which I think is much more beneficial and helpful than random
>> 1000-line followups to newsgroup posts telling people about
>> some perfect ideal way to develop code, yet never seeming
>> to demonstrate those practices in real-world situations.[/color]
> So what are your criteria for "real-world situation"?[/color]

As in, used in real-world production sites to solve a problem. Not just
theoretical situations.
[color=blue]
> As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
> introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
> flaw[/color]

Which is an opinion very open to debate.
[color=blue]
> and you do not even see them as an issue, there is not much
> point in my spending any time sorting out the misconceptions,
> inefficiencies and general shortcomings of your code, as the best
> outcome could be no more than a bad concept well implemented.[/color]

Wrong. You're welcome to criticize individual functions which have very
specific tasks, independent of the library they may be used in. Or
techniques used within functions to accomplish a very granular task. That
is, improve the building blocks even if you disagree with what I build with
them. Even if you don't put the pieces into libraries, the pieces themselves
are still reusable.
[color=blue]
> But if
> you want your code critiqued you only have to start posting it to the
> group, as someone is likely to comment on anything you post and I am
> a very long way from being the only contributor to this group who
> would be able to suggest improvements to your code.[/color]

Again, Richard, the personal attacks get pretty boring and repetitive.
Perhaps I will post some example code to get recommendations . Feel free to
respond, when I do so.

--
Matt Kruse
Javascript Toolbox: http://www.mattkruse.com/javascript/

[Richard Cornford]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Matt Kruse wrote:[color=blue]
> Richard Cornford wrote:[color=green]
>> So you contribute to the group by sending people personal e-mails?
>> That is not actually a contribution to the group, and will not
>> influence the tone of the group in any way.[/color]
>
> I don't send technical responses/answers. Rather, advice on how to ask
> better questions on how to rephrase posts to be more productive.
> So, your criticisms don't really apply.[/color]

So you object to the way people will not answer the question asked,
don't post answers to the questions asked yourself and do post private
e-mails to questioners advising them on how to ask their questions?

If you are not willing to answer peoples questions I don't see any
grounds for you to be complaining when others are also not willing to.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> which I think is much more beneficial and helpful than random
>>> 1000-line followups to newsgroup posts telling people about
>>> some perfect ideal way to develop code, yet never seeming
>>> to demonstrate those practices in real-world situations.[/color]
>> So what are your criteria for "real-world situation"?[/color]
>
> As in, used in real-world production sites to solve a problem. Not
> just theoretical situations.[/color]

Are you saying that code acquires some extra worth as a result of being
used on a commercial web site? You imply that code posted to this group
would be in some sense inferior or deficient just by virtue of not being
able to tell whether it had ever been used on commercial web site.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
>> introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
>> flaw[/color]
>
> Which is an opinion very open to debate.[/color]

It has been debated, often. The consensus is that needlessly introducing
a dependency on an optional technology is incorrect design in an
Internet browser scripting context.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> and you do not even see them as an issue, there is not much
>> point in my spending any time sorting out the misconceptions,
>> inefficiencies and general shortcomings of your code, as the best
>> outcome could be no more than a bad concept well implemented.[/color]
>
> Wrong.[/color]

Wrong that you don't perceive the needless introduction of a javascript
dependency as an issue? If that is the case why have you just proposed
that it is open to debate? Or wrong that it would be a waste of my time
proposing modifications to your code knowing that you do not perceive
the javascript dependency as a fundamental flaw, and so will not fix it?
That is a personal decision, I draw my conclusion form you reaction to
the suggestion that the needless javascript dependency is a fundamental
flaw in your code design, and I react accordingly. Not really something
that can be categorised as right or wrong.
[color=blue]
> You're welcome to criticize individual functions which have
> very specific tasks, independent of the library they may be used in.[/color]
<snip>

If you post them someone will comment on them. There is no reason it has
to be me.

Richard.

[Matt Kruse]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Richard Cornford wrote:[color=blue]
> Are you saying that code acquires some extra worth as a result of
> being used on a commercial web site?[/color]

Not necessarily commercial, but open to being used by thousands of users,
yes.
What might be considered a great technical solution, in theory, may turn out
to be completely unusable in practice.
Putting theory to practical test by applying it is very useful, and
definitely helps in understanding the bigger picture. Having reusable code
that is used by thousands of users and sites around the world, in all
different situations, with different levels of experience, definitely
changes how you approach some things.
Developing code without any practical application is pretty boring. IMO.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
>>> introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
>>> flaw[/color]
>> Which is an opinion very open to debate.[/color]
> It has been debated, often. The consensus is that needlessly
> introducing a dependency on an optional technology is incorrect
> design in an Internet browser scripting context.[/color]

Quit being obtuse.
Most of my code does not introduce a dependency on javascript. It adds
functionality, but very rarely do I code anything that is intended to
deliver content or functionality that cannot be handled successfully without
javascript.
Furthermore, even if my code _did_ introduce a dependency on javascript, and
pages would fail miserably without javascript enabled, that's still not
_wrong_. There are THOUSANDS of developers out there developing for
environments where javascript will always be enabled and of a certain
version. There's no reason not to develop reusable code for these people,
even if the same code wouldn't work well in an internet environment. You're
the one trying to limit the scope of the code to the one context it might
fail in, not me.
[color=blue]
> Or wrong that it would be a
> waste of my time proposing modifications to your code knowing that
> you do not perceive the javascript dependency as a fundamental flaw,
> and so will not fix it?[/color]

If I told you that my code would be used only in an intranet environment
where javascript will be enabled, would you then see it as valid and look at
it differently? Or would you keep your blinders on?

Is good necessarily bad if it could possibly be applied in an inappropriate
way?

--
Matt Kruse
Javascript Toolbox: http://www.mattkruse.com/javascript/

[Richard Cornford]

Re: How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

Matt Kruse wrote:[color=blue]
> Richard Cornford wrote:[color=green]
>> Are you saying that code acquires some extra worth as a
>> result of being used on a commercial web site?[/color]
>
> Not necessarily commercial, but open to being used by
> thousands of users, yes.[/color]

That is not much of a criteria as anything available through a public
URL is open to being used by thousands of users (and that includes
anything ever posted to the newsgroup because of the google archives).
So what is this extra "worth" that is acquired as a result of being
available on a public URL?
[color=blue]
> What might be considered a great technical solution, in
> theory, may turn out to be completely unusable in practice.[/color]

You appear to be confused about the nature of theory. A theory is an
assertion; say the assertion that a particular application of javascript
could be implemented without a javascript dependency. Code written to
demonstrate that that was the case is not a theory, it either does dose
make that demonstration or it does not. Code is absolute in nature and
amenable to objective assessment.
[color=blue]
> Putting theory to practical test by applying it is very useful,[/color]

Absolutely, if someone makes an assertion that they cannot turn into a
functional demonstration, at minimum, then the sensible response is to
dismiss their theory.
[color=blue]
> and
> definitely helps in understanding the bigger picture. Having reusable
> code that is used by thousands of users and sites around the world,
> in all different situations, with different levels of experience,
> definitely changes how you approach some things.[/color]

Assuming you are talking about yourself, it certainly seems to have made
you complacent.
[color=blue]
> Developing code without any practical application is pretty boring.
> IMO.[/color]

As far as I can see there is very little discussion of code that does
not have a practical application on this group. The odd purely
theoretical discussion happens; implementing the Curry function, whether
protected object members can usefully be emulated. They don't have
practical applications but anyone interested in maximising their
understanding of javascript as a language would still be interested in
the techniques needed and the mechanisms involved. And in the end being
able to apply understanding to any practical situation goes a very long
way towards producing an optimum solution.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
>>>> introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
>>>> flaw
>>> Which is an opinion very open to debate.[/color]
>> It has been debated, often. The consensus is that needlessly
>> introducing a dependency on an optional technology is incorrect
>> design in an Internet browser scripting context.[/color]
>
> Quit being obtuse.
> Most of my code does not introduce a dependency on javascript. It adds
> functionality, but very rarely do I code anything that is intended to
> deliver content or functionality that cannot be handled successfully
> without javascript.
> Furthermore, even if my code _did_ introduce a dependency on
> javascript, and pages would fail miserably without javascript
> enabled, that's still not _wrong_.[/color]

While you continue to define data in javascript structures instead of in
the HTML you are introducing a dependency on javascript. It may be the
case that someone using one of your libraries could implement sufficient
feature detecting, fall-back and server based alternatives to mitigate
that dependency but those possibilities are not inherent in more than a
couple of your scripts. And a copy-and-paste philosophy targeted at the
less knowledgeable (without detailed instructions on appropriate
implementation) is not likely to result in the coding of those
additional considerations.

<snip>[color=blue]
> If I told you that my code would be used only in an intranet
> environment where javascript will be enabled, would you then see it
> as valid and look at it differently? Or would you keep your blinders
> on?[/color]
<snip>

It is not necessary to author code to an Internet standard when it is
intended exclusively for use in the known environment of an Intranet.
There remain valid arguments for doing so anyway, but a javascript
dependency in code that was specified as only intended to be executed on
javascript capable/enabled browsers would not normally be subject to
comment.

Richard.