event handlers

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by josh, Aug 14, 2007.

  1. josh

    josh Guest

    Hi, I read that professional web developer write javascript event
    handler out of html tag attributes
    to separate script from html structure...like css....

    so when I must write an handler I should do:

    i.e. document.body.onclick=foo
    or document.body.addEventListener("click", foo, false);

    but if I had to pass parameters????

    i.e.

    <script>
    function foo(txt)
    {
    alert(txt)
    }

    </script>
    <body onclick="foo('clicked me!!!!')"

    Thanks

    P.S. anonymous function doesn't seem resolve it because I can only
    write arguments....Am I in error??
     
    josh, Aug 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. josh

    RobG Guest

    On Aug 14, 9:03 pm, josh <> wrote:
    > Hi, I read that professional web developer write javascript event
    > handler out of html tag attributes
    > to separate script from html structure...like css....


    That is one strategy that can be employed, and it is a good strategy,
    however there are a number of ways to achieve it if you consider both
    server and client based approaches.


    > so when I must write an handler I should do:
    >
    > i.e. document.body.onclick=foo


    If you want to add a single handler, and (usually) wait for the onload
    event to add it, that is one way. Or you can use a server framework
    that adds the appropriate HTML attribute:

    <body onclick="foo();" ... >

    and have the onload handler available as soon as the body element is
    (and download fewer bytes to as a bonus).


    > or document.body.addEventListener("click", foo, false);


    And not support IE? I think you'd need a handler-adding function that
    accommodates at least addEventListener and attachEvent, with fallback
    to a hand-crafted method that can add multiple event handlers.


    > but if I had to pass parameters????
    >
    > i.e.


    Or do you mean e.g.?


    > <script>
    > function foo(txt)
    > {
    > alert(txt)
    >
    > }
    >
    > </script>
    > <body onclick="foo('clicked me!!!!')"


    window.onload = function() {
    document.body.onclick = function(){foo('click me!!!!');
    }

    However, as noted above, if you use a server framework that adds the
    handler in the HTML, you actually maintain the separation of script
    and HTML at the server where it counts for you, download less code and
    your visitors aren't waiting for the onload event to add your handler.


    > P.S. anonymous function doesn't seem resolve it because I can only
    > write arguments....Am I in error??


    I don't know what you mean by "I can only write arguments".


    --
    Rob
     
    RobG, Aug 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. josh wrote:
    > Hi, I read that professional web developer write javascript event
    > handler out of html tag attributes to separate script from html structure


    Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    incompetent.

    > ..like css....


    CSS is a formatting language (not a programming language) which is attached
    to its markup with one or more of element relation, `id', `class' or `style'
    attribute.

    > so when I must write an handler I should do:
    >
    > i.e. document.body.onclick=foo
    > or document.body.addEventListener("click", foo, false);


    .... or document.body.attachEvent("onclick", ...) (MSHTML) or whatever
    proprietary means the UA's DOM supports.

    And you would have to test for each of it, with a remaining margin of error
    since not all DOM features can be tested for exactly. Whereas with an
    entirely standards compliant event handler attribute you would not have to.

    Now which approach would the professional Web developer prefer?

    > but if I had to pass parameters????


    Your Question Mark key is borken. But if you had to pass parameters, you
    would use a function expression:

    document.body.addEventListener("click", function() { foo(bar); }, false);

    > i.e.
    >
    > <script>


    http://validator.w3.org/

    > function foo(txt)
    > {
    > alert(txt)
    > }
    >
    > </script>
    > <body onclick="foo('clicked me!!!!')"


    That is the way, with only one exclamation mark of course.

    > [...]
    > P.S. anonymous function doesn't seem resolve it because I can only
    > write arguments....Am I in error??


    Parse error.


    PointedEars
    --
    "Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't
    prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.)"
    -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Aug 14, 2007
    #3
  4. josh

    josh Guest

    On 14 Ago, 13:46, RobG <> wrote:
    > On Aug 14, 9:03 pm, josh <> wrote:


    > Or do you mean e.g.?

    yes I mean it!

    > I don't know what you mean by "I can only write arguments".


    Oh, yes I used that keyword improperly. I wanted to say:
    e.g.
    document.body.onclick = function(arg1)
    {
    // ...
    }
    but in that code formal parameter arg1 is not usable because I can't
    pass any actual parameter

    Josh
     
    josh, Aug 14, 2007
    #4
  5. josh wrote:
    > On 14 Ago, 13:46, RobG <> wrote:
    >> I don't know what you mean by "I can only write arguments".

    >
    > Oh, yes I used that keyword improperly. I wanted to say:
    > e.g.
    > document.body.onclick = function(arg1)
    > {
    > // ...
    > }
    > but in that code formal parameter arg1 is not usable because I can't
    > pass any actual parameter


    Event listeners have a fixed signature that is defined by the UA's DOM.
    See my other followup.


    PointedEars
    --
    Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
    who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
    the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
    -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Aug 14, 2007
    #5
  6. josh

    Stevo Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    > what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    > it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    > incompetent.
    >
    > Now which approach would the professional Web developer prefer?
    >
    >> but if I had to pass parameters????

    >
    > Your Question Mark key is borken.


    Did anyone ever tell you that your messages come across as being very
    nasty. I wonder if you're that evil to people you work with that ask you
    questions face to face, or if it's just here where you don't have to
    face the people you attack. Don't bother replying to me, I'm killing
    this thread so Thunderbird doesn't show it to me anymore. I don't want
    to see what kind of response you'll give to me. I already imagine it
    will be savage so I don't need to see it.

    You need to remember one thing when you're answering a question here. If
    they knew as much as you do, they wouldn't come asking questions. Not
    everyone has your skill level in Javascript or the myriad of web
    technology that's available. People get thrown in the deep end sometimes
    by their boss, or they're a kid that wants to teach themself, or maybe
    they just inherited a support task. You might say to them well go learn
    it then, and that's just what they're doing. No javascript book explains
    every type of programming task you'll encounter, so when a newbie has
    questions that the book (or google) don't provide an answer to, then
    this is one of the places they'll find their way to. Calling them stupid
    and shouting the rules of a group they've never visited is just plain
    nasty, and you're the worst offender of this.
     
    Stevo, Aug 14, 2007
    #6
  7. josh

    josh Guest

    On 14 Ago, 13:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    wrote:

    > Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    > either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    > what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    > it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    > incompetent.


    I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    think that
    this is a great book and the author Danny is also a professional
    javascript programmer!
    """" Separating content from scripting
    Those who use CSS to style their sites have learned that separating
    style definitions from the HTML markup
    makes a huge improvement in productivity when it comes time to change
    colors or font specifications
    throughout a site. Instead of having to modify hundreds of <font> tag
    specifications scattered around the
    site, all it takes is a simple tweak of a single CSS rule in one .css
    file to have that change be implemented
    immediately across the board.
    The notion of using HTML purely for a page's structure has also
    impacted scripting. It is rare these days for
    a professional scripter to put an event handler attribute inside an
    HTML tag. That would be considered too
    much mixing of content with behavior. In other words, the HTML markup
    should be able to stand on its
    own so that those with nonscriptable browsers (including those with
    vision or motor disabilities who use
    specialized browsers) can still get the fundamental information
    provided by the page. Any scripting that
    impacts the display or behavior of the page is added to the page after
    the HTML markup has loaded and
    rendered. Even assigning events to elements is done by script after
    the page load.
    Script code is more commonly linked into a page from an external .js
    file. This isn't part of the separation
    of content and scripts trend, but a practice that offers many
    benefits, such as the same code being instantly
    usable on multiple pages. Additionally, when projects involve many
    code chefs, scripters can work on their
    code while writers work on the HTML and designers work on their
    external CSS code """""

    However that is only an opinion ... and I'm agree with him (may be you
    not)

    > CSS is a formatting language (not a programming language) which is attached
    > to its markup with one or more of element relation, `id', `class' or `style'
    > attribute.


    in fact also CSS is attached to HTML (like javascript object code to
    tags) and
    today web developer doesn't "mix" presentation code (css) with
    structural code (html)...
    you are contradicting yourself.....

    > document.body.addEventListener("click", function() { foo(bar); }, false);


    thanks this is the answer I was searching.....

    Josh
     
    josh, Aug 14, 2007
    #7
  8. josh wrote:
    > [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
    >> Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    >> either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    >> what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    >> it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    >> incompetent.

    >
    > I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    > think that this is a great book and the author Danny is also a professional
    > javascript programmer!


    You are wrong. The book you are referring to is merely considered by some
    to be the best of the bad JavaScript books known around here.

    I for one have seen too many very bad examples out of it being posted here
    to refrain from ever buying it and to recommend against buying it.
    Partially because it is hopelessly outdated, partially because it is
    factually wrong. YMMV, but then please don't complain here if it does not
    work as expected. You have been warned.


    PointedEars
    --
    Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
    a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
    when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
    computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Aug 14, 2007
    #8
  9. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > josh wrote:
    >> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
    >>> Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    >>> either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    >>> what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    >>> it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    >>> incompetent.

    >> I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    >> think that this is a great book and the author Danny is also a professional
    >> javascript programmer!

    >
    > You are wrong. The book you are referring to is merely considered by some
    > to be the best of the bad JavaScript books known around here.


    Sorry, that was Flanagan's book. The book you are referring to is much
    worse than that. Google is your friend. [psf 6.1]


    PointedEars
    --
    "Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't
    prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.)"
    -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Aug 14, 2007
    #9
  10. josh

    josh Guest

    On 14 Ago, 15:41, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > > josh wrote:
    > >> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
    > >>> Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    > >>> either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    > >>> what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    > >>> it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    > >>> incompetent.
    > >> I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    > >> think that this is a great book and the author Danny is also a professional
    > >> javascript programmer!

    >
    > > You are wrong. The book you are referring to is merely considered by some
    > > to be the best of the bad JavaScript books known around here.

    >
    > Sorry, that was Flanagan's book. The book you are referring to is much
    > worse than that. Google is your friend. [psf 6.1]
    >
    > PointedEars
    > --
    > "Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't
    > prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.)"
    > -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>


    Really? Please link me where is written and who wrote review! I don't
    seem so!
    and which are for you best javascript books? or the books where did
    you study?
    I'm very curious!
     
    josh, Aug 14, 2007
    #10
  11. josh

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <> wrote:

    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > > josh wrote:
    > >> [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:
    > >>> Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    > >>> either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    > >>> what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    > >>> it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    > >>> incompetent.
    > >> I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    > >> think that this is a great book and the author Danny is also a professional
    > >> javascript programmer!

    > >
    > > You are wrong. The book you are referring to is merely considered by some
    > > to be the best of the bad JavaScript books known around here.

    >
    > Sorry, that was Flanagan's book. The book you are referring to is much
    > worse than that. Google is your friend. [psf 6.1]


    More use would be names of some books you consider good, and why.
    Otherwise this is just a guessing game.
     
    Tim Streater, Aug 14, 2007
    #11
  12. Tim Streater wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <> wrote:
    >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >>> josh wrote:
    >>>> I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    >>>> think that this is a great book and the author Danny is also a professional
    >>>> javascript programmer!
    >>> You are wrong. The book you are referring to is merely considered by some
    >>> to be the best of the bad JavaScript books known around here.

    >> Sorry, that was Flanagan's book. The book you are referring to is much
    >> worse than that. Google is your friend. [psf 6.1]

    >
    > More use would be names of some books you consider good, and why.


    There is not any, because I never had the need to (buy and) read one about
    this topic. Online resources, including this group, sufficed to date.
    Why that is so, can be read in <f806at$ail$1$>,
    by Richard Cornford:

    | Probably we all started off learning javascript from books. As you learn
    | more, and try more, one of the things you learn is how bad those books
    | were. At this point nobody is going to start looking at tutorial books
    | that attempt to round up the techniques we have been using for years,
    | without being paid to do so. And that is assuming such books exist.
    |
    | That leaves you with a problem; the people reading such books are doing
    | so precisely because they don't know enough to judge them in the wider
    | context, and the people who could make the judgment are not motivated to
    | even look at those books.


    HTH

    PointedEars
    --
    Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
    a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
    when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
    computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Aug 14, 2007
    #12
  13. josh

    josh Guest

    On 14 Ago, 17:53, Randy Webb <> wrote:
    > josh said the following on 8/14/2007 8:10 AM:
    >
    > > On 14 Ago, 13:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    > >> either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    > >> what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    > >> it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    > >> incompetent.

    >
    > > I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    > > think that this is a great book and the author Danny is also a
    > > professional javascript programmer!

    >
    > Danny Goodman is an author, not a programmer.
    >
    > --
    > Randy
    > Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
    > comp.lang.javascript FAQ -http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
    > Javascript Best Practices -http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/


    oh so who does write a programming book is only an author?
    please explain me this difference! it's a new concept for me...
     
    josh, Aug 14, 2007
    #13
  14. josh wrote:
    > On 14 Ago, 17:53, Randy Webb <> wrote:
    >> josh said the following on 8/14/2007 8:10 AM:
    >>> On 14 Ago, 13:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    >>>> either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    >>>> what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    >>>> it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    >>>> incompetent.
    >>> I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    >>> think that this is a great book and the author Danny is also a
    >>> professional javascript programmer!

    >> Danny Goodman is an author, not a programmer.
    >> [...]

    >
    > oh so who does write a programming book is only an author?


    Because common programming sense had no part in writing it.

    > please explain me this difference! it's a new concept for me...


    E.g. because of this from one of his articles from View Source in 1999 [1]:

    | A DEBUGGING LIBRARY COMPONENT
    | [...]
    | Listing 1
    |
    | // Simple browser sniffing needed here
    | var isNav = (navigator.appName == "Netscape")
    | // Output list of properties for the object
    | function dumpProps(objName) {
    | [...]
    | for (var i in obj) {
    | if (i != "outerHTML" && i != "outerText" && i != "innerHTML"
    | && i != "innerText" && i != "domain") {
    | msg += objName + "." + i + "=" + obj + "\n"
    | if (count > maxProps) {
    | // Output a batch
    | if (isNav) {
    | java.lang.System.out.println(msg)
    | }
    | else {
    | alert(msg)
    | }
    | [...]

    Having seen this at that time, I daresay, show me a snippet of Goodman's
    script code and I tell you why NOT to use it.

    Please trim your quotes.


    PointedEars
    ___________
    [1]
    http://web.archive.org/web/20040803...html?content=goodman_debug/goodman_debug.html
    --
    Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
    who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
    the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
    -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Aug 14, 2007
    #14
  15. josh wrote:
    > On 14 Ago, 17:53, Randy Webb <> wrote:
    >> josh said the following on 8/14/2007 8:10 AM:
    >>
    >>> On 14 Ago, 13:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    >>>> either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    >>>> what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    >>>> it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    >>>> incompetent.
    >>> I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    >>> think that this is a great book and the author Danny is also a
    >>> professional javascript programmer!

    >> Danny Goodman is an author, not a programmer.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Randy
    >> Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
    >> comp.lang.javascript FAQ -http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
    >> Javascript Best Practices -http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

    >
    > oh so who does write a programming book is only an author?
    > please explain me this difference! it's a new concept for me...
    >

    An autohr writes books, a programmer writes code.

    There, even a Mac users should be able to grasp the basic difference.
     
    The Natural Philosopher, Aug 14, 2007
    #15
  16. In comp.lang.javascript message <>, Tue,
    14 Aug 2007 15:41:17, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    posted:
    >Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:


    >> You are wrong. The book you are referring to is merely considered by some
    >> to be the best of the bad JavaScript books known around here.

    >
    >Sorry, that was Flanagan's book. The book you are referring to is much
    >worse than that. Google is your friend. [psf 6.1]


    Your ill-tempered nature makes you post too hastily and too carelessly.
    Are you still trying to grow up or is it a peculiar form of senility
    that you have?

    --
    (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
    In MS OE, choose Tools, Options, Send; select Plain Text for News and E-mail.
    Don't quote more than is needed, and respond after each quoted part.
     
    Dr J R Stockton, Aug 14, 2007
    #16
  17. josh

    josh Guest

    On 14 Ago, 22:25, The Natural Philosopher <> wrote:
    > josh wrote:
    > > On 14 Ago, 17:53, Randy Webb <> wrote:
    > >> josh said the following on 8/14/2007 8:10 AM:

    >
    > >>> On 14 Ago, 13:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    > >>> wrote:
    > >>>> Since DOM stripting is inherently attached to the markup it operates on,
    > >>>> either you have read utter nonsense or you have completely misunderstood
    > >>>> what was written. If the former and it was a book, rip it apart, shredder
    > >>>> it, throw it in the trash can, burn it, and sue the author for being
    > >>>> incompetent.
    > >>> I quote the exact phrase taken by JavaScript Bible Sixth Ed and I
    > >>> think that this is a great book and the author Danny is also a
    > >>> professional javascript programmer!
    > >> Danny Goodman is an author, not a programmer.

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Randy
    > >> Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
    > >> comp.lang.javascript FAQ -http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
    > >> Javascript Best Practices -http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

    >
    > > oh so who does write a programming book is only an author?
    > > please explain me this difference! it's a new concept for me...

    >
    > An autohr writes books, a programmer writes code.


    ok stop with humor!
    Simply I think that if someone write a programming book or a
    techinical book
    can't be only an author. May be if someone is a programmer could not
    be able
    to write a programming book. In fact is not simple to write technical
    concept...
    Sure if someone write only books and make few complex programs will
    not be ever a great
    programmer but this is another story!

    > There, even a Mac users should be able to grasp the basic difference.

    I wonder but here in this newsgoup is not possible to make post or to
    say
    opinions without being insulted?
    I think that also Mac users are able to manage computer or do you
    think that it's only
    a Linux users prerogative?
    P.S.
    I use GNU/Linux!
     
    josh, Aug 15, 2007
    #17
  18. josh a écrit :
    > On 14 Ago, 15:41, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    > wrote:
    >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >>> You are wrong. The book you are referring to is merely considered by some
    >>> to be the best of the bad JavaScript books known around here.

    >> Sorry, that was Flanagan's book. The book you are referring to is much
    >> worse than that. Google is your friend. [psf 6.1]

    >
    > which are for you best javascript books? or the books where did
    > you study?


    LOL. no, not LOL ... ROFLMAO :)

    Thomas doesn't need any books to study, he just know.

    --
    laurent
     
    Laurent vilday, Aug 16, 2007
    #18
  19. Laurent vilday wrote:
    > josh a écrit :
    >> On 14 Ago, 15:41, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    >> wrote:
    >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >>>> You are wrong. The book you are referring to is merely considered by some
    >>>> to be the best of the bad JavaScript books known around here.
    >>> Sorry, that was Flanagan's book. The book you are referring to is much
    >>> worse than that. Google is your friend. [psf 6.1]

    >> which are for you best javascript books? or the books where did
    >> you study?

    >
    > LOL. no, not LOL ... ROFLMAO :)


    Please return to your chat channel.

    > Thomas doesn't need any books to study,


    I did not need to, that is correct.

    > he just know.


    Analphabetism seems to be a common disease on Usenet nowadays.

    <>


    PointedEars
    --
    realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
    evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
    madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
    -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Aug 16, 2007
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Boban Dragojlovic

    Dynamic Buttons and Event Handlers, revisited

    Boban Dragojlovic, Jun 24, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,886
    Boban Dragojlovic
    Jun 24, 2003
  2. Trevor Hartman

    Re: crazy event handlers!

    Trevor Hartman, Jun 25, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    991
  3. Oisin Grehan
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    528
    Natty Gur
    Jul 15, 2003
  4. Robert Millman

    Debug step into event handlers

    Robert Millman, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    435
    Robert Millman
    Jul 29, 2003
  5. Matt Sogla

    Losing event handlers

    Matt Sogla, Jul 30, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    389
    Alvin Bruney
    Jul 31, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page