Prototype: Core Google Group

Re: Support full HTML set in (un)escapeHTML

tobie.lan...@gmail.com (Tobie Langel) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:53:49 UT

Good point (and sorry if the tone of my earlier post came out wrong,
that wasn't my intention).

There's indeed a number of entities which are part of the HTL 4.01 spec
[1].

It's legitimate to want to be able to convert those, notably when
dealing with legacy or external content.

However, given the sheer size of the code compared its usage (now that

Re: Support full HTML set in (un)escapeHTML

t...@crowdersoftware.com (T.J. Crowder) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:28:43 UT

Tobie,

That's rather flip, don't you think? How does character encoding
choice solve " or  ?

These entities are valid HTML, regardless of character encoding. There
are sometimes very good reasons for using them. It's fine to say
String#unescapeHTML won't handle these because it's too big a problem

Re: Support full HTML set in (un)escapeHTML

discc...@gmail.com (disccomp) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:05:42 UT

Is it possible to manipulate the encoding of a string to convert HTML
entities? I'm trying to display the string in the title attribute of
an anchor. I'm using PJSON to get rss feeds from google's feed API, so
I have no ability to preprocess the data.

Re: Support full HTML set in (un)escapeHTML

tobie.lan...@gmail.com (Tobie Langel) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:10:24 UT

Thanks for your input.

A correct character encoding should be all you really need to handle
such entities.

Best,

Tobie

Re: [Prototype-core] Support full HTML set in (un)escapeHTML

nganp...@gmail.com (Ngan Pham) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:01:11 UT

I came across this problem myself. I think prototype should provide some
type of API for things like this. In all my apps, I have a prototype_ext.js
file that make small modifications/enhancements to prototype. It would be
nice to be able to do something like this:

prototype_ext.js:
Prototype.HTMLEntities.add('&b lah;', '0x0039');

Support full HTML set in (un)escapeHTML

discc...@gmail.com (disccomp) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:47:37 UT

I was using unescapeHTML when I noticed that it was missing many of
the encoded characters in this string I passed it. I went and checked
the code, it seems that these functions only deal with about 3 out of
hundreds of characters. " ' for example.

I came across a script which handles the named entities, maybe we can

Re: Genereic Function Benchmark

jp.encau...@gmail.com (Jean-Philippe Encausse) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:26:38 UT

Ok Thanks, I'll try this

Re: [Prototype-core] Genereic Function Benchmark

bla...@gmail.com (Allen Madsen) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:02:18 UT

You could try unittest_js'[1] benchmark function. It's at the very end
of the file. It'll help with the timing. Other than that, you may like
the page speed extension for firebug.

[1] [link]

Allen Madsen
[link]

Genereic Function Benchmark

jp.encau...@gmail.com (Jean-Philippe Encausse) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:48:20 UT

Hi,

I'm looking for a way to analyse all my javascript code to:
- Count function call
- Check time spend in each function
- Understand bottlenecks

=> Is there existing libs to do this ? (Seems firebug do not do that).
=> Is there a way to "proxy" Functions.prototype to performs bench on
function calls ?

Re: Porting the old docs

t...@crowdersoftware.com (T.J. Crowder) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:56:00 UT

Cheers Mike!

I gave you a shout over on the user's list; didn't know you were on
this one...

-- T.J. :-)

Re: Porting the old docs

mike.rum...@gmail.com (Mike Rumble) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:24:58 UT

I can take some of these over the next week or so.

Will make a start promptly.

Mike.

Porting the old docs

t...@crowdersoftware.com (T.J. Crowder) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:15:10 UT

Hey folks,

I've just completely failed to find the time to port all of the old
docs, which is (as a whole) a much bigger job than I thought it would
be.

So there are now a bunch of "merge old docs" tickets[1] in Lighthouse,
each of which is just a bite-sized task (and has the mostly-formatted

Re: On Class#create

t...@crowdersoftware.com (T.J. Crowder) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:36:53 UT

Hi,

You can have as many mix-ins as you like, which is why the number of
arguments is variable:

"...any arguments passed are treated as objects, and their methods are
copied over ("mixed in") as instance methods of the new class. In
cases of method name overlap, later arguments take precedence over

Re: On Class#create

jon...@gmail.com (joneff) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:29:24 UT

I have indeed noticed that. I quite often use function without named
arguments and then populate what I need from the arguments collection.

I was wondering why was that so. I mean creating a class does not need
infinite number of arguments, now would it? In the longest case
scenario it needs class name (prototype creates differently but

Re: On Class#create

t...@crowdersoftware.com (T.J. Crowder) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:44:51 UT

Hi,

Class.create does have arguments, details in the docs[1]. The
implementation doesn't use any _named_ arguments, it accesses its
arguments via the `arguments` array (on the first line of the
function, in fact).

[1] [link]

HTH,