Web Authoring Tools - Re: Javascript will not display date correctly in FIREFOX, ok in

Author

Re: Javascript will not display date correctly in FIREFOX, ok in

Ed Mullen

2005-01-30, 7:19 pm

Dr John Stockton wrote:

> JRS: In article <1106961495.669881.20920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> dated Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:18:15, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,
> kroger@princeton.edu posted :
>
>
>
> Before posting to a newsgroup, you should read its FAQ; the FAQ for this
> group is posted thrice a week, in two parts.

Really? Never seen it here. Perhaps it's sent via an email news feed?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html

Ed Mullen

2005-01-30, 7:19 pm

Michael Winter wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:30:05 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>
> [Auto-posted FAQ]
>
>
>
> No. It's posted just before 1200 GMT[1] every Monday, Wednesday and
> Friday. It has been for as long as I've read this group.
>
> Mike
>
>
> [1] Possibly +0100 in the summer. I don't have those posts on this machine.
>

Nope, sorry. Been reading this group since at least early 2003 and I've
never seen a FAQ posted. Again, perhaps it is automatically sent on the
mailing list but I'm not seeing it on
news://news.mozilla.org:119/netscap...mozilla.general using
Mozilla Suite Mail/News. I see messages here going back to 11/13/2004
and there's no FAQ among them.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html

Ed Mullen

2005-01-30, 7:20 pm

Richard Cornford wrote:

> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> The extensive list of cross-posted groups is not being observed. The FAQ
> in question is the one belonging to comp.lang.javascript (and it is
> posted to the group as described).
>
> Richard.
>
>

Ahhh! Excellent. Thank you.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html

Daffy Duck

2005-01-30, 7:20 pm

On 30.01.2005 13:51, Michael Winter wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:30:05 -0500, Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net> wrote:
>
> [Auto-posted FAQ]
>
>
> No. It's posted just before 1200 GMT[1] every Monday, Wednesday and
> Friday. It has been for as long as I've read this group.
>
> Mike
>
>
> [1] Possibly +0100 in the summer. I don't have those posts on this machine.
>

Classic example of why x-posting is idiotic to say the least. Now you
got users confused over a FAQ that's posted to ONE group but not to the
other x-posted groups ... senseless waste of everybody's time and effort.

/dd

Ron Hunter

2005-01-31, 7:29 am

Ed Mullen wrote:
> Michael Winter wrote:
>
>
> Nope, sorry. Been reading this group since at least early 2003 and I've
> never seen a FAQ posted. Again, perhaps it is automatically sent on the
> mailing list but I'm not seeing it on
> news://news.mozilla.org:119/netscap...mozilla.general using
> Mozilla Suite Mail/News. I see messages here going back to 11/13/2004
> and there's no FAQ among them.
>
Never seen it either....

Ron Hunter

2005-01-31, 7:29 am

David Biddulph wrote:
> "Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message
> news:ctjflp$se71@ripley.netscape.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the FAQ referred to may be on comp.lang.javascript, one of the list
> of groups to which this thread was cross-posted.
I HATE cross-posted messages. BOUND to cause confusion!

Bozo

2005-01-31, 11:19 pm

On 29.01.2005 17:44, Dr John Stockton wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> JRS: In article <1106961495.669881.20920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> dated Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:18:15, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,
> kroger@princeton.edu posted :
>
> Before posting to a newsgroup, you should read its FAQ; the FAQ for this
> group is posted thrice a week, in two parts.
>
> Indeed, you should read relevant FAQs before writing Web pages too; the
> time you thus save includes your own.
>
> Probably you are using method getYear which AIUI in various systems
> can for current dates return 5, 105, or 2005.
>
> Method getFullYear is available in current browsers (but be careful
> if you are writing for the third world or backwoods colleges). And a
> programmer can construct it from getYear and getTime . But if
> that is the current date, then
> (a) 2000 + getYear()%100 will do for quite a while
> (b) telling the reader the current date is a waste of bandwidth.
>

The correct answer was posted long before you posted your reply. YOU
need to read the group a little more often before you criticize others
dumbass.

Bozo

2005-01-31, 11:19 pm

On 31.01.2005 07:09, Dr John Stockton wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> JRS: In article <ctjcju$2261@ripley.netscape.com>, dated Sun, 30 Jan
> 2005 14:30:05, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Ed Mullen
> <ed@edmullen.net> posted :
>
>
> But what do *you* mean by "here"?

If you know ANYthing about cross-posting then you'd maybe realize that
the poster is reading in a group that has never seen the FAQ or even
heard of it for that matter. You need to learn how to deal with
cross-posting and not be so rude. Maybe even be nice enough to give a
short explanation for the benefit of those that are reading in another
group.

> If you had read the attribution which you quoted, you would have seen
> exactly what I meant by "here". The signature of that article provided
> a further clue.
>
> Before responding to an article, read it all, including the significant
> header lines and signature; and think about what you have read.
> Remember that the responsibility for your outgoing newsgroups line is
> yours and yours alone.
>

Take your own advice sometimes.

Mark Preston

2005-02-01, 1:05 pm

Bozo wrote:

> If you know ANYthing about cross-posting then you'd maybe realize that
> the poster is reading in a group that has never seen the FAQ or even
> heard of it for that matter. You need to learn how to deal with
> cross-posting and not be so rude. Maybe even be nice enough to give a
> short explanation for the benefit of those that are reading in another
> group.
>
John's point was that the address to find the FAQ, the group to which
the FAQ applies, the group *from* which John was posting and the subject
at hand were *all* included in his reply.

I'm afraid it is up to the OP to read the damn replies and be
responsible for his own posting - not for John to try and second-guess
his actual intentions. John's reply was concise, clear, informative,
with full references and every possible detail that could have been
asked for.