control a form submit

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

No SGML markup item (to avoid the ambiguous term "element") is a
declaration if it does not start with `<!'

That is a false – generalized – statement, because it implies the
reference concrete syntax.

[…]

What other declarations are there in SGML that do not start with `<!'
(MDO)?

I don’t know what was difficult to understand about my statement.

I don't know why you are not answering my question but quote something that
proves me right instead.

<!SGML "ISO 8879:1986 (WWW)" [...]

^^
You see the MDO here, don't you?


POintedEars

 

[Eric Bednarz]

I don't know why you are not answering my question but quote something
that

I didn’t quote anything, I included a complete SGML document; good job
on creative snipping to win another argument.

proves me right instead.

You should change your signature to “Respect my authorita!â€.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I didn’t quote anything, I included a complete SGML document;

And that is supposed to be the answer to *what*?

good job on creative snipping to win another argument.

What the heck are you talking about? You posted something that starts with
an MDO, obviously and by your own account an SGML markup item -- to show
*what*?

You should change your signature to “Respect my authorita!â€.

You should learn to answer simple questions.


PointedEars

 

[ace]

I didn't quote anything, I included a complete SGML document; good job
on creative snipping to win another argument.


You should change your signature to "Respect my authorita!".

"Sir, step out of your car please"

 

[Eric Bednarz]

What the heck are you talking about? You posted something that starts with
an MDO, obviously and by your own account an SGML markup item -- to show
*what*?

If you had read the SGML declaration and looked at the prolog

Answer query:
Any query answered...

you would have noted 2 MDO instances (and corresponding MDCs), one for
the document type declaration and one for the element declaration.
Nobody is denying that the MDO of the SGML declaration must always be
‘<!’, but that was not the issue.

Rethink your attitude. I *have* provided proof of what I said by
providing a complete document; if it wasn’t self-explanatory to you,
you could have started with passing it to onsgmls, ospam etc.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

If you had read the SGML declaration and looked at the prolog


you would have noted 2 MDO instances (and corresponding MDCs), one for
the document type declaration and one for the element declaration.
Nobody is denying that the MDO of the SGML declaration must always be
‘<!’,
Good.

but that was not the issue.

ACK, I can see it now. Thanks.

Rethink your attitude.

Learn to answer simple questions in a helpful way. Should my question not
have indicated that I do not know SGML as well as you?

I *have* provided proof of what I said [...]

You have failed to explain it until now. So much for attitude.


EOD

PointedEars

 

[Scott Sauyet]

Learn to answer simple questions in a helpful way.  Should my question not
have indicated that I do not know SGML as well as you?

This is a very amusing response, given that seven minutes later,
Thomas Lahn posted this in another thread [1]:

| On Jan 25, 6:13 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <[email protected]>
wrote:
| > Larry wrote:
| > > Is there a way to know if the current page is a result of a get
or
| > > post?
| >
| > Yes.
| >
| > PointedEars

-- Scott
____________________
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/c83d5761fe07bbc5

 

[Scott Sauyet]

Well, his comments on the mark-up are only valid for HTML doctypes.
Whereas this is valid for HTML4 or XHTML:

   <input type="submit" id="butOne" value="butOne"/>

That is a true statement (at least to the extent to which it is possible
to declare any mark-up fragment 'valid', given that validity is a
quality that only applies to hole documents in this context), but it is
a true statement behind which there is an explanation that reveals a
very messy truth. [ ... ]

Acknowledged. Much of the world of web development is messy.

I did not observe any such criticism,

Not directly. But Thomas' only advice was to point the OP to the
validator, which would catch only the comma typos and the row/column
omission.

though the absence of NAME
attributes is possibly very significant for the OP's story. When we see
"Problem is that the two textarea don't seem to post" and textarea
elements with no NAME attributes thoughts may go to the notion of a
'successful control" in HTML. [ ... ]

Yes, and although I should have realized that and pointed it out, no
one who did realize it bothered to point it out. Pointing to the
validator or simply responding "Creative markup" certainly does not
point it out.

Those should be subject to complaint. If we have the assertion that the
mark-up is "trimmed down" it is reasonable to assume that what remains
was all in the original, even if we cannot know anything about what was
omitted.

I don't make the assumption that "trimmed down" is that literal, just
that it contains only what the OP believes to be the essential parts.

[ ... ] Conclusion:
something critical to the problem has either been "trimmed down" or
omitted entirely. Thus the possibility of help getting beyond a parade
of blind guesswork always was negligible.

Possibly, but a quick response like this could have been more useful:
"Well, I don't see any NAME attribute on your TEXTAREAS. Did you
forget to include them? If not, you might want to supply a bit more
context, because there are several problems with the snippet you
supplied."

If you wanted that read as a suggestion to use a submit type button and
then use its onclick handler to cancel the submission you probably
wanted to reverse the order of those two comments. My interpretation of
what you wrote was that - return false; - suggestion was aimed at the
button type input.

Clearly that was misplaced. I'm afraid it was just a matter of poor
proofreading.

(Ignoring the fact that this a newsgroup and not a forum, and its not
really having members, just participants)

I meant "forum" in the general sense: "a public meeting place for
open discussion." It bothers me that closed online groups have
appropriated the name for their own use. :-(

 Reality may not work up the way you plan it.

It never does!

Where browser scripting is concerned, a general answer of; 'start from
the basis of valid HTML mark-up', seems reasonably competent, at least
in the face of a question being asked that is at minimum
self-contradictory.

I spent a fair bit of time in CSS Discuss, and while occasionally
there were people who would simply refuse to look further if there
were validation issues, the more valuable members of the community
would point that out alongside other suggestions.

You (and anyone else interested) will always learn most from attempting
to answer the questions asked by OPs. It is not necessarily a painless
process, but it is very effective.

Yes, I've spent enough time on both sides of the classroom to realize
this.

On the whole the uncensored/un-moderate nature of (most) newsgroups is a
good thing. The price is that nobody is in a position to control what
anyone else does (at least so long as they don't breach their news
service provider's terms and conditions). Instead the only influence
anyone has it on their own actions; by themselves doing the things that
they think others should be doing (and so, not doing the things that
they think others should not be doing). In that way, a 'common' or
'popular' attitude towards the way things should be done can influence
the overall 'attitude' of the group.

I have absolutely no time at all for the people who complain about the
attitudes/behaviour of others and then contribute nothing positive
themselves. They do no more than waste everyone's time/bandwidth.

Agreed. I hope I'm not in that category. I certainly strive not to
be.

Those differences actually do little more than introduce another
question; Is this real XHTML (sent with an appropriate XHTML
Content-type header, to browsers that understand XHTML), or content
negotiated (where we have cross DOM issues to consider), or is it
formally malformed HTML (only ever sent with HTML Content-type headers)?

Perhaps it would have raised those questions, but would it have
generated more useful responses for the OP? What if the short-tag
markup were removed?

You are likely to find that there is a lot more behind some of the
things that seem petty than may be obvious at first sight.

Probably, but it's disheartening to see it over and over.

Thank you for your long and detailed response,

-- Scott