> You are referring to XML parse tree. Not even close.
What are you smoking? > Even Nodejs parses uses the XML parser instead of the HTML parser. There is no "the XML parser" or "the HTML parser"; there are many HTML and XML parsers. > JavaScript OO was specifically designed around DOM. What language features do you believe have anything to do with DOM? Also, the Perl packages HTML::DOM and XML::DOM handle DOM just fine; does that make Perl part of HTML? > This has caused a huge debate about JavaScript being OO. No, what has cause a huge debate is that JS doesn't satisfy the standard definitions of OO language. > JavaScript is part of HTML. Repeating the claim doesn't make I true. > JavaScript could not exist outside of HTML until 2009 (nodejs). I can get you a good price on a calendar for 1995, which, last I heard, is earlier than 2009. > I never said that CSS is OO. However it does have scripting capabilities How do you code, e.g., a sort, in CSS? > Only Netscape supported javascript for web sites. The rest of the world only > accepted JavaScript as part of HTML. I can get you a good price on a 1996 calendar. > You missed my point which is the definition of "macro" which you said has not > changed since 1950. Whoosh! Which part of "first hit" don't you understand. THE FIRST HIT MATCHED THE DEFINITION FROM THE 1950S. > What main stream languages prior to C (1970) used the word "macro" in the > same way as C? PL/I. Pretty much every mainframe assembler. OTOH, I've never seen anybody but you refer to COPY or INCLUDE s macro facilities. > When did "macro" go from "special purpose command language" to being "copy"? It never meant "special purpose command language"; closest to that I've ever seen was the term "keyboard macro"? > Did we eventually just accept the C definition of "macro" because of it's > wide spread use? Not unless there is a time machine involved; we accepted the definition two decades before C. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Jon Perryman <jperr...@pacbell.net> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:21 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Who writes these things? On Wednesday, September 25, 2019, 11:13:19 AM PDT, Seymour J Metz wrote: > The format of an HTML parse tree constructed by, > e.g., a Perl program, is not compatible with JavaScript. You are referring to XML parse tree. HTML parse tree's do not exist outside web browsers. Even Nodejs parses uses the XML parser instead of the HTML parser. > The objects and attributes of HTML have nothing to do with the things > > called objects and attributes in an OO language. Sure they do. JavaScript OO was specifically designed around DOM. This has caused a huge debate about JavaScript being OO. The argument is about OO enforcement which had to be lax because of the DOM design. JavaScript is part of HTML. JavaScript could not exist outside of HTML until 2009 (nodejs). JavaScripts OO was designed around the DOM object created by browsers from the HTML. The DOM has "on" events which could not run outside of HTML up to 2009. JavaScript OO was developed to support DOM. Are you saying the seats in your car are not part of your car? > CSS is not even Turing complete, much less an OO language or a scripting > language. I never said that CSS is OO. However it does have scripting capabilities that are not obvious which I mentioned in a previous email. Just like javascript, CSS is part of HTML. It is only accessible and usable in HTML. > JavaScript was created as a Scripting language for web sites; > not as an extension of HTML. Only Netscape supported javascript for web sites. The rest of the world only accepted JavaScript as part of HTML. > IBM never referred to copy books as macro instructions You missed my point which is the definition of "macro" which you said has not changed since 1950. What main stream languages prior to C (1970) used the word "macro" in the same way as C? Everyone understands "copy book" functionality. I referenced "copy book" because it's similar to C "macro" functionality. When did "macro" go from "special purpose command language" to being "copy"? Did we eventually just accept the C definition of "macro" because of it's wide spread use? In the end, this is all just terminology. In the end, I've learned to just accept that groups definition and move forward Jon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
