User talk:Sevenspade

  • Revision slug: User_talk:Sevenspade
  • Revision title: User talk:Sevenspade
  • Revision id: 104889
  • Created:
  • Creator: Sevenspade
  • Is current revision? No
  • Comment /* JS history */ sign

Revision Content

Re: Deletion request

Hi there, just wanted to let you know I answered you at User_talk:Nickolay#Templates_for_non-standard_stuff. --Nickolay 13:32, 2 September 2006 (PDT)

JS history

Re the TODO list on your user page - I doubt the information on pre-JS1.5 versions is of any practical interest. After all, JS 1.5 was out for over 6 years now. IIRC someone (brendan?) advocated for removal of pre-1.5 info from the reference.

The ECMA row is helpful as an indicator whether a feature is defined in the standard or a proprietary extension. When we start documenting the JS2 stuff, it may be useful to differentiate ECMA-262 ed. 3 vs ed. 4.

My personal opinion is that NES info is not useful, while information about JS bugs in modern browsers is. --Nickolay 05:10, 5 February 2007 (PST)

Shortly after I created the TODO, I read over Main's message on the mailing list about the removal of the backwards compatibility sections.
When I first began editing, my initial thought was to completely remove the Backwards Compatibility/JavaScript 1.2 sections, but decided against it after assuming its existence was because including the information was a general desire common among other editors (you all). Instead I opted for keeping a very clear distinction between JavaScript 1.2 information (plus other, older versions) and the documentation (of the modern use) of the language. My thoughts on that were that okay, fine, we can keep the older information about backwards compatibility, but if we're going to do that, it should be comprehensive and not just a few, seemingly out-of-place words on JavaScript 1.2.
That's where my plans on expanding "implemented in . . ." boxes came from. Basically, this is my vote in agreement to remove references to deprecated JS versions. I'm aware that you, dria, and Brendan support this, and apparently Maian was fine with it. I will take this to be a "consensus" on the subject and begin making changes when I can.
Similarly, I am in agreement to remove NES information. Also, I guess my comment about the usefulness of the ECMA line was confusing. I am definitely in favor of keeping information regarding ECMA standardization. However, as of now, pages merely mention "ECMA 262," and do not note which revision of the specification first introduced each aspect. This should be fixed.

--Sevenspade 12:49, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Revision Source

<h3 name="Re:_Deletion_request"> Re: Deletion request </h3>
<p>Hi there, just wanted to let you know I answered you at <a href="User_talk:Nickolay#Templates_for_non-standard_stuff">User_talk:Nickolay#Templates_for_non-standard_stuff</a>. --<a href="User:Nickolay">Nickolay</a> 13:32, 2 September 2006 (PDT)
</p>
<h3 name="JS_history"> JS history </h3>
<p>Re the TODO list on your user page - I doubt the information on pre-JS1.5 versions is of any practical interest. After all, JS 1.5 was out for over 6 years now. IIRC someone (brendan?) advocated for removal of pre-1.5 info from the reference.
</p><p>The ECMA row is helpful as an indicator whether a feature is defined in the standard or a proprietary extension. When we start documenting the JS2 stuff, it may be useful to differentiate ECMA-262 ed. 3 vs ed. 4.
</p><p>My personal opinion is that NES info is not useful, while information about JS bugs in modern browsers is. --<a href="User:Nickolay">Nickolay</a> 05:10, 5 February 2007 (PST)
</p>
<dl><dd>Shortly after I created the TODO, I read over <a class="external" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/devmo-general/2005-November/000538.html">Main's message</a> on the mailing list about the removal of the backwards compatibility sections.
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>When I first began editing, my initial thought was to completely remove the Backwards Compatibility/JavaScript 1.2 sections, but decided against it after assuming its existence was because including the information was a general desire common among other editors (you all). Instead I opted for <a class="external" href="http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/index.php?title=Talk:Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference&amp;oldid=35790"> keeping a very clear distinction between JavaScript 1.2 information (plus other, older versions) and the documentation (of the modern use) of the language. </a><a class="external" href="http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/index.php?title=Talk:Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=36043">My thoughts on that</a> were that okay, fine, we can keep the older information about backwards compatibility, but if we're going to do that, it should be comprehensive and not just a few, seemingly out-of-place words on JavaScript 1.2.
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>That's where my plans on expanding "implemented in . . ." boxes came from. Basically, this is my vote in agreement to remove references to deprecated JS versions. I'm aware that you, dria, and Brendan support this, and apparently Maian was fine with it. I will take this to be a "consensus" on the subject and begin making changes when I can.
</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>Similarly, I am in agreement to remove NES information. Also, I guess my comment about the usefulness of the ECMA line was confusing. I am definitely in favor of keeping information regarding ECMA standardization. However, as of now, pages merely mention "ECMA 262," and do not note which revision of the specification first introduced each aspect. This should be fixed.
</dd></dl>
<p>--<a href="User:Sevenspade">Sevenspade</a> 12:49, 7 February 2007 (PST)
</p>
Revert to this revision