User talk:Bogtha

To what degree were you in the "industry" when you were 13 years old? I mean, if the info I see is right, and you're 25, you couldn't have been more than 13 by 2000. I'm not trying to argue that you weren't involved in web development at that age, I'm just curious as to what kind of projects you were involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.244.253 (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSS rudeness[edit]

Ahhh, you mean the CSS2.1 spec, not the CSS1 one that works in the wider majority of browsers. In that case, I think you should stop referring to "bad edit"s and clarify yourself a little more. In the article - where it counts, please. --Nigelj 20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not just referring to the CSS 2.1 specification. I'm talking about how the HTML class attribute has always worked.

Go to the CSS 1 specification that you are referring to.
Go to the class selector section.
Note it says: "To increase the granularity of control over elements, a new attribute has been added to HTML [2]: 'CLASS'.".
Click the [2] reference, and follow it to the HTML 4 specification.
Go to the Attributes section.
Find the class attribute.
What does it say?

This attribute assigns a class name or set of class names to an element. Any number of elements may be assigned the same class name or names. Multiple class names must be separated by white space characters.

Go to the CSS 2 specification, the one that's been around since 1998, not the more recent 2.1 that you allude to.
Find the class selector section.
Note that the example given directly contradicts your change to the article.
What else does it say?

For style sheets used with HTML, authors may use the dot (.) notation as an alternative to the "~=" notation when matching on the "class" attribute. Thus, for HTML, "DIV.value" and "DIV[class~=value]" have the same meaning.

Now find the ~= selector section.
What does it say?

[att~=val]

Match when the element's "att" attribute value is a space-separated list of "words", one of which is exactly "val".

You took information that was largely correct¹ but imprecisely-worded and made it incorrect. It was a bad edit, I said so, and I pointed you in the right direction, the specifications. The semantics of the class attribute have been established for almost a decade. The class attribute is fundamentally an HTML construct. Although later CSS specifications hold your hand and explain something that's already described in the HTML specifications, it doesn't mean earlier specifications make HTML act differently just because they omit this information.

¹ The only thing wrong with what was there originally was that it said it was a substring match rather than a particular kind of substring match.

As you refer to "the wider majority of browsers", would you please do some testing? I believe the wider majority of browsers interpret the class attribute as a multi-token list as I describe, and that browsers interpreting the class attribute as a single token value are a buggy minority.

My entire comment was "rv bad edit and clarify - please read spec more closely, also remember that just because ID is unique in a document, it doesn't mean that it's unique in all documents that a SS might be applied to."

Which part of that do you think was rude? Do you not think that it was a bad edit? Which part of the article should be clarified more? Why are you telling me to do it instead of doing it yourself? Did something I wrote introduce ambiguity or vagueness into the article? If so, what exactly? --Bogtha 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript RegExp problem[edit]

I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]