Skip to content

Sync with upstream @ 2b5ac971 #12

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 633 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

javascript-translate-bot

This PR was automatically generated to merge changes from en.javascript.info at 2b5ac97

Conflicted files in this PR have labels ">>>..." with both sides of conflict. If you merge this PR, you'll need to examine the listed files and resolve conflicts.

Alternatively, you can close this PR and merge conflicting changes manually.

The following files have conflicts and may need updates of the translations:

To merge changes manually (instead of merging this PR):

  1. Add remote upstream that links to the English version (only needs to be done once)
    • git add remote upstream https://github.com/javascript-tutorial/en.javascript.info
  2. Commit all current work locally and git checkout master
  3. Pull the recent changes from the English version:
    • git pull upstream master
  4. Deal with the conflicts. If a conflict touches a few lines, then just fix it. Otherwise, following commands can help:
    • Checkout your (translated) version of a file/folder at the given path (removes all upstream changes):
      • git checkout --ours <path>
    • See the diff, what changed in the upstream file since branches diverged:
      • git diff --word-diff master...upstream/master <path> (please note: three dots in the command)
    • Then you can examine the changes in upstream and add them manually
  5. When conflicts resolved, commit them and git push origin master

This PR will be closed and replaced with a new one in a few days.

iliakan and others added 30 commits October 17, 2019 08:43
Grammar fixes
"an array", "filter out"
Changed 'XHTML' to 'in XML mode' in title to match contents. 'XHTML' isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article except in that title. So either change it to 'XML' or explain the relationship?
"...`1` for elements,`3` for text nodes, and a few others ..."
There has to be a scary CPU-intensive task here, otherwise the example wouldn't make sense. Hence the suppression of "can";
I have also removed "actually" because in this context it would be interpreted as "to your surprise", which is not the case here
Deleted the full-stop as it's one sentence only
Minor grammar; removed unnecessary semicolon; added (best practices) semicolon
Minor grammar fixes and suggestions
Update article.md
iliakan and others added 26 commits November 6, 2019 21:33
"computed property name" instead of "computed property"
not proved features of class properties
Update article.md
Grammatical changes to description of `offsetParent`. Adding 'the' before 'browser', removing commas. Changing "satisfies the following conditions" to "satisfies **one of** the following conditions", which I **think** is what is meant.
Further changes to `offsetParent` description.
`offsetParent` criteria list -- minor formatting change to previous change (added spaces).
`null` if that's `offsetParent` -> `null` for `offsetParent`
"CSS width is useless at all." -> "CSS width is useless."

Could have also said "CSS width is of no use at all."
"starts to bug..." -> "becomes buggy..."

I am not aware of "bug" being used as a verb in IT, but if it is, this is the first time I recall seeing it, so I would say it's probably not common.

Anyway, using it as a verb kind of bugged me a little.
'from bottom scroll' -> 'to bottom scroll'
"how to..." -> "how do we..."
"find out" -> "find"
And an added "the": "**the** `<html>` tag".
'"pro" and "contra" -> 'pros and cons'.

'pros and cons' is a much more typical way of saying it. But "pro" and "contra" is interesting. I hadn't previously thought about what "cons" stood for, though now it seems obvious.

Also, punctuation change.
'work with event' -> 'work with events'
"but strongly" -> "but is strongly". "is strongly not recommended" is still a bit odd, though it's readable and totally understandable. Could maybe be changed to "but is strongly discouraged". Still, not bad as (now) is.
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLA assistant check
Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
1 out of 8 committers have signed the CLA.

✅ iliakan
❌ paroche
❌ wgolledge
❌ hrodward
❌ lumosmind
❌ lex111
❌ dashaezhova
❌ embok345
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.