Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Andrew DeFaria, Jun 4, 2004.

  1. I thought this would be fairly straight forward but apparently it's not.
    Given the following html file:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>Test</title>
    </head>
    <body>
    <form method="post" action="javascript:">
    Type a key
    <input
    align = "right"
    type = "text"
    name = "field"
    size = "8"
    onkeydown = "alert ('keydown');"
    onkeyup = "alert ('keyup');"
    onchange = "alert ('change');"
    >

    </form>
    </body>
    </html>

    Pretty simple. (Browse to http://defaria.com/test.html). What one would
    expect is if a key was typed that the following alerts would occur:
    keydown, keyup and when you leave the field you'd get a change. Not so
    with the two major browsers (well I'm using FireFox and IE).

    With Firefox I get the following (click on the text input box and type a
    character):

    * keyup! Why not keydown first!
    * change! Why a change?!? I should only get a change when I leave
    the field no?
    * keydown! It's about time!

    Now click anywhere outside the text field to "leave" the field and...
    Nothing.

    Now with IE (again click on text input bos and type a character):

    * keydown - cool, what I expect
    * Nothing! - Hmmm what happened to the keyup?!?

    Now click anywhere outside the test field to "leave" the field and:

    * change: OK that's expected but again what happened to the keydown?

    Anybody have any ideas? Opinions?
    --
    Some people are like Slinkies . . not really good for anything, but you
    still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
     
    Andrew DeFaria, Jun 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. > Anybody have any ideas? Opinions?

    The problem is that when you do an alert, a seperate dialogwindow is
    opened and the focus on the window handeling the events is lost. Somehow
    this results in some weird behaviour. I modified your script a bit, and
    now it does give the output you expect. I tested it in IE, NS7 and FireFox

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>Test</title>
    <script language="JavaScript">

    function debug(s) {
    ta = document.getElementById("debugArea");
    ta.value+=s+"\n";
    }

    </script>
    </head>
    <body>
    <form method="post" action="javascript:">
    Type a key
    <input
    align = "right"
    type = "text"
    name = "field"
    size = "8"
    onkeydown = "debug ('keydown');"
    onkeyup = "debug ('keyup');"
    onchange = "debug ('change');"
    >

    </form>
    <textarea id="debugArea" readonly="true" cols="40" rows="20"></textarea>
    </body>
    </html>
     
    Vincent van Beveren, Jun 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andrew DeFaria

    Lee Guest

    Andrew DeFaria said:
    >
    >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
    >--------------020300050907030309060809


    >Now with IE (again click on text input bos and type a character):<br>
    ><ul>
    > <li>keydown - cool, what I expect</li>
    > <li>Nothing! - Hmmm what happened to the keyup?!?</li>
    ></ul>
    >Now click anywhere outside the test field to "leave" the field and:<br>
    ><ul>
    > <li>change: OK that's expected but again what happened to the keydown?</li>
    ></ul>
    >Anybody have any ideas? Opinions?<br>



    Please post plain text only to this newsgroup.

    I don't have Firefox, but when testing in the two major browsers
    I see the results you describe for IE.

    Your text element never sees the keyup event because the alert
    has taken focus before it happens. That's why the keydown
    event is rarely useful.
     
    Lee, Jun 4, 2004
    #3
  4. Andrew DeFaria

    McKirahan Guest

    "Andrew DeFaria" <> wrote in message
    news:4aedd$40c0045f$43661972$...
    I thought this would be fairly straight forward but apparently it's not.
    Given the following html file:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>Test</title>
    </head>
    <body>
    <form method="post" action="javascript:">
    Type a key
    <input
    align = "right"
    type = "text"
    name = "field"
    size = "8"
    onkeydown = "alert ('keydown');"
    onkeyup = "alert ('keyup');"
    onchange = "alert ('change');"
    >

    </form>
    </body>
    </html>

    Pretty simple. (Browse to http://defaria.com/test.html). What one would
    expect is if a key was typed that the following alerts would occur: keydown,
    keyup and when you leave the field you'd get a change. Not so with the two
    major browsers (well I'm using FireFox and IE).

    With Firefox I get the following (click on the text input box and type a
    character):

    keyup! Why not keydown first!
    change! Why a change?!? I should only get a change when I leave the field
    no?
    keydown! It's about time!
    Now click anywhere outside the text field to "leave" the field and...
    Nothing.

    Now with IE (again click on text input bos and type a character):

    keydown - cool, what I expect
    Nothing! - Hmmm what happened to the keyup?!?
    Now click anywhere outside the test field to "leave" the field and:

    change: OK that's expected but again what happened to the keydown?
    Anybody have any ideas? Opinions?
    --
    Some people are like Slinkies . . not really good for anything, but you
    still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.


    Try changing "alert" to "windows.status +=":

    <html>
    <head>
    <title>onkeys.htm</title>
    </head>
    <body>
    <form method="post" action="javascript:">
    Type a key
    <input
    align = "right"
    type = "text"
    name = "field"
    size = "8"
    onkeydown = "window.status += ' keydown';"
    onkeyup = "window.status += ' keyup';"
    onchange = "window.status += ' change';"
    >

    </form>
    </body>
    </html>
     
    McKirahan, Jun 4, 2004
    #4
  5. Andrew DeFaria

    DU Guest

    Andrew DeFaria wrote:

    > I thought this would be fairly straight forward but apparently it's not.
    > Given the following html file:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">


    Error: invalid formal public identifier -//w3c//dtd html 4.0
    transitional//en: invalid public text class

    W3C Quality Assurance
    List of valid DTDs you can use in your document.
    http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

    W3C Quality Assurance Tutorial
    My Web site is standard! And yours?
    http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/Web-Quality

    Why Validate Your HTML
    Creating Valid HTML Documents Means Cleaner Code and Easier Maintenance
    http://webdesign.about.com/library/weekly/aa092799.htm

    > <html>
    > <head>
    > <title>Test</title>
    > </head>
    > <body>
    > <form method="post" action="javascript:">


    I'm surprised you can write
    action="javascript:"
    just like that. Why not just
    action=""
    if you don't want to submit the form?

    > Type a key
    > <input
    > align = "right"
    > type = "text"
    > name = "field"
    > size = "8"
    > onkeydown = "alert ('keydown');"


    As someone mentioned, creating an alert here is not wise.

    KeyEvent:properties (that demo can be improved)
    http://www.din.or.jp/~hagi3/JavaScript/JSTips/Mozilla/Samples/KeyEvent.htm

    > onkeyup = "alert ('keyup');"
    > onchange = "alert ('change');"
    > >

    > </form>
    > </body>
    > </html>
    >
    > Pretty simple.


    I recommend you always validate your markup code with a validator before
    posting a question. All problems which will need to be corrected anyway
    after testing with various user agents are related to validation errors.

    DU
     
    DU, Jun 4, 2004
    #5
  6. DU wrote:

    > Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >
    >> I thought this would be fairly straight forward but apparently it's
    >> not. Given the following html file:
    >>
    >> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">

    >
    > Error: invalid formal public identifier -//w3c//dtd html 4.0
    > transitional//en: invalid public text class


    Well first off this was just a little test. I try to remain compliant in
    more formal web pages. Of course, they make it so difficult...

    > W3C Quality Assurance
    > List of valid DTDs you can use in your document.
    > http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html


    Interesting list, with no real information about which one I should use
    and why! HTML 2.0? 3.2? 4.01? Strict? Transitional? Frameset? What about
    XHMTL? Who knows! My guess would be HTML 4.01 Strict would be best for
    me and I will endeavor to use that. But perhaps the reason why people
    pay that much attention to such standards and validations is that they
    are not easy to do and not explained very well.

    > W3C Quality Assurance Tutorial
    > My Web site is standard! And yours?
    > http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/Web-Quality


    Interesting and yada, yada. Yes standards are important. Yes I try to
    comply. Yes I will try harder.

    > Why Validate Your HTML
    > Creating Valid HTML Documents Means Cleaner Code and Easier Maintenance
    > http://webdesign.about.com/library/weekly/aa092799.htm
    >
    >> <html>
    >> <head>
    >> <title>Test</title>
    >> </head>
    >> <body>
    >> <form method="post" action="javascript:">

    >
    > I'm surprised you can write action="javascript:" just like that. Why
    > not just action="" if you don't want to submit the form?


    I'm equally surprised that you can write action=""! IOW I think it's
    largely irreverent to the issue at hand.

    >> Type a key
    >> <input
    >> align = "right"
    >> type = "text"
    >> name = "field"
    >> size = "8"
    >> onkeydown = "alert ('keydown');"

    >
    > As someone mentioned, creating an alert here is not wise.


    Yes. I got that. And I understand why now.

    > KeyEvent:properties (that demo can be improved)
    > http://www.din.or.jp/~hagi3/JavaScript/JSTips/Mozilla/Samples/KeyEvent.htm
    >


    Thanks. But it was not a demo. It was a chopped down example of a
    problem I was having.

    >> onkeyup = "alert ('keyup');"
    >> onchange = "alert ('change');"
    >> >

    >> </form>
    >> </body>
    >> </html>
    >>
    >> Pretty simple.

    >
    > I recommend you always validate your markup code with a validator
    > before posting a question. All problems which will need to be
    > corrected anyway after testing with various user agents are related to
    > validation errors.


    Not so really here. The problem was the usage of alert! ;-)

    --
    Why do people point to their wrist when asking for the time, but not to
    their crotch when they ask where the toilet is?
     
    Andrew DeFaria, Jun 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    <snip>
    > I'm confused! ...

    <snip>

    | Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
    | boundary="------------040701020404010203020602"

    Content types for posts to comp.lang.javascript should be plain text
    only.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Jun 5, 2004
    #7
  8. Andrew Thompson wrote:

    > On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 09:25:00 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >
    >> But generally I think it's best to code for the standards

    >
    > Agree.
    >
    >> ..and then rely on standards compliances.

    >
    > Disagree.


    I mean when you don't have the money, resources nor time to purchase one
    of each time of machine/OS and browser. YMMV.

    --
    Everyone has the right to be stupid, but your abusing the privilage.
     
    Andrew DeFaria, Jun 6, 2004
    #8
  9. Richard Cornford wrote:

    > Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    > <snip>
    >
    >> I'm confused! ...

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > | Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
    > | boundary="------------040701020404010203020602"
    >
    > Content types for posts to comp.lang.javascript should be plain text only.


    So says you!

    --
    I went to a general store, but they wouldn't let me buy anything specific.
     
    Andrew DeFaria, Jun 6, 2004
    #9
  10. Andrew DeFaria

    Lee Guest

    Andrew DeFaria said:
    >
    >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
    >--------------000602010602060307040007
    >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >
    >Richard Cornford wrote:
    >
    >> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>> I'm confused! ...

    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> | Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
    >> | boundary="------------040701020404010203020602"
    >>
    >> Content types for posts to comp.lang.javascript should be plain text only.

    >
    >So says you!


    So says the newsgroup FAQ:
    http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3
     
    Lee, Jun 6, 2004
    #10
  11. Andrew DeFaria

    Lee Guest

    Andrew DeFaria said:

    >Content types for posts to comp.lang.javascript should be plain text
    >only.<br>
    > </blockquote>
    >So says you!<br>
    > </blockquote>
    >So says the newsgroup FAQ:<br>
    ><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
    >href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3">http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3</a><br>
    ></blockquote>
    >BFD! Sue me!<br>


    It's more or less self-enforcing. People who are so rude
    as to continue to post HTML gain reputations as assholes,
    and so the people who are most able to help simply stop
    reading their posts.

    Then there are the prospective employers who Google to see
    what this "Andrew DeFaria" has contributed, and find out
    that you have no respect for established conventions, or
    for other people.

    Best of luck in life. I think you're going to need it.
     
    Lee, Jun 6, 2004
    #11
  12. Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    > Lee wrote:<br>
    > <blockquote cite=""
    > type="cite">Andrew DeFaria said:<br>
    > <br>
    > <blockquote type="cite">Content types for posts to
    > comp.lang.javascript should be plain text<br>
    > only.&lt;br&gt;<br>
    > &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br>
    > So says you!&lt;br&gt;<br>
    > &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br>
    > So says the newsgroup FAQ:&lt;br&gt;<br>
    > &lt;a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"<br>
    > href="<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
    > href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3">
    > http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3</a>
    > "&gt;<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
    > href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3">
    > http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3</a>
    > &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br>
    > &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br>
    > BFD! Sue me!&lt;br&gt;<br>
    > </blockquote>
    > <!----><br>
    > It's more or less self-enforcing. People who are so rude as
    > to continue to post HTML gain reputations as assholes, and so
    > the people who are most able to help simply stop reading their
    > posts.<br>
    > </blockquote>
    > It has been my continuing experience (IOW real world) that
    > this is just a fallacy. In the real world it matters little to
    > most people, except the most pig headed (who usually have little
    > to contribute anyway), and that it doesn't end up making a
    > difference at all.<br>
    > <snip>


    You are willing to gamble that the people who think that the established
    Usenet conventions should be followed are just being "pig headed" and
    "have little to contribute anyway" because "most people" wouldn't care?

    Well most people (on a head-count basis) don't care, but then the advice
    (reaction?) you would get from most people on a javascript/browser
    scripting question would probably make you wish you hadn't bothered
    asking them.

    > Then again, surprise, surprise, HTML <b>IS</b> a standard!
    > <snip>


    The UK's square-pinned 13A domestic electrical plug is *a* standard, it
    just isn't the standard everywhere. In most places such a plug is
    useless and there are probably some places where attempting to use one
    would be dangerous. Standards have contexts, in this context the
    standard is plain text (and for a reason).

    Still, you have been advised, you have been warned, and you have made a
    decision.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Jun 7, 2004
    #12
  13. Richard Cornford wrote:

    > You are willing to gamble that the people who think that the
    > established Usenet conventions should be followed are just being "pig
    > headed" and "have little to contribute anyway" because "most people"
    > wouldn't care?


    I thought I was pretty clear before. Yes.

    >> Then again, surprise, surprise, HTML <b>IS</b> a standard!
    >> <snip>

    >
    > The UK's square-pinned 13A domestic electrical plug is *a* standard,
    > it just isn't the standard everywhere. In most places such a plug is
    > useless and there are probably some places where attempting to use one
    > would be dangerous. Standards have contexts, in this context the
    > standard is plain text (and for a reason).


    The good thing about standards is that there are sooo many to choose
    from! And generally standards carry more weight than conventions. You're
    plea was for a convention. Are you really that surprised that not
    everybody gives the same weight to conventions as to standards?

    > Still, you have been advised, you have been warned, and you have made
    > a decision.


    Yes so why do you go on and on about it?


    --
    Southern DOS: Y'all reckon? (Yep/Nope)
     
    Andrew DeFaria, Jun 7, 2004
    #13
  14. Andrew DeFaria

    rh Guest

    "Richard Cornford" wrote:

    <snip>

    > You are willing to gamble that the people who think that the established
    > Usenet conventions should be followed are just being "pig headed" and
    > "have little to contribute anyway" because "most people" wouldn't care?
    >
    > Well most people (on a head-count basis) don't care, but then the advice
    > (reaction?) you would get from most people on a javascript/browser
    > scripting question would probably make you wish you hadn't bothered
    > asking them.
    >
    > > Then again, surprise, surprise, HTML <b>IS</b> a standard!
    > > <snip>

    >
    > The UK's square-pinned 13A domestic electrical plug is *a* standard, it
    > just isn't the standard everywhere. In most places such a plug is
    > useless and there are probably some places where attempting to use one
    > would be dangerous. Standards have contexts, in this context the
    > standard is plain text (and for a reason).
    >
    > Still, you have been advised, you have been warned, and you have made a
    > decision.
    >


    So is it safe to say, then, in summary?:

    There are those who will choose to engage in discussion groups to
    become protagonists, and conversely, there are those who will become
    disengaged if they choose to be antagonists of the pro's.

    Probably not. ;-)

    ../rh
     
    rh, Jun 7, 2004
    #14
  15. rh wrote:
    > "Richard Cornford" wrote:

    <snip>
    >> You are willing to gamble that the people who think that the
    >> established Usenet conventions should be followed are just being
    >> "pig headed" and "have little to contribute anyway" because "most
    >> people" wouldn't care?

    <snip>
    >> Still, you have been advised, you have been warned, and you have
    >> made a decision.

    >
    > So is it safe to say, then, in summary?:
    >
    > There are those who will choose to engage in discussion groups to
    > become protagonists, and conversely, there are those who will become
    > disengaged if they choose to be antagonists of the pro's.


    No that would be a misguided conclusion. There is no protagonist
    relationship; advice is given and the benefits of following it
    documented. While the consequences of disregarding it may not be
    absolute or certain, the precedents suggest that they are negative, and
    in extreme cases (e.g. George Hester) render participation in the group
    futile.

    Usenet is a medium where all communication is one-to-many, which may
    alone suggest that the onus is on the author of articles posted to
    create them with a consideration for the many that will (may) read them.
    Usenet posting conventions are mostly concerned with maximising the
    effectiveness and efficiency of that communication for the readers of
    articles (as the one-to-many relationship would suggest they should).

    For occasional users of Usenet the relative inefficiency of postings
    that do not conform to the conventions would not necessarily be very
    apparent, but for regular users they become very apparent, particularly
    when a reasonable expectation of conventional behaviour results in an
    action that proves futile (such as scrolling down through a quoted block
    of text to read the following response only to find that there is no
    following comment). Thus the disregard for the conventions on the part
    of an individual disproportionately impacts on the regular users of
    Usenet, and the one-to-many relationship means that it has that impact
    on many of them.

    Any individual's initial ignorance of the relevant Usenet conventions is
    undesirable but probably inevitable. Ignorance can be cured by directing
    people to relevant reference material (the group's FAQ), and forgiven.

    But a decision to disregard the conventions once informed of them is
    equivalent to announcing a desire to deliberately waste the time of
    everyone on the receiving end of the one-to-many relationship, and
    particularly the regular participants in the group.

    > Probably not. ;-)


    There is nothing that can be done to force people to post in any
    particular way, but if someone announces their intention to try to waste
    my time I can mitigate the effect by choosing not to spend my time on
    their posts (not giving them my time so they cannot waste it).

    Of course my reaction may not be everyone else's, which is why I
    described it as a gamble. But my experience suggest that the majority of
    the regular (and most informed/potentially useful) contributors to this
    group, probably because incorrect posting style impacts more on regular
    participants, are supporters of the observance of the conventions and
    they do react to individuals how will not observe them by not answering
    their questions.

    Whitens the number of threads in which people are asked not to top-post,
    where a top-posted response containing a trivial follow-up question
    receives no response. I know the answer to the follow-up questions, I
    know that 20-odd other regular contributors to the group also know the
    answer, but still it isn't posted. Coincidence or reaction?

    Generally, when people express an unwillingness to go out of their way
    for the benefit of those around them, expecting assistance when in need
    is unrealistic.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Jun 8, 2004
    #15
  16. Richard Cornford wrote:
    <snip>
    Incorrect spellings:-

    > ... individuals how will not observe ...

    ^^^
    .... individuals who will not ...

    <snip>
    > Whitens the number of threads ...

    ^^^^^^^
    Witness the number of threads ...
    <snip>

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Jun 8, 2004
    #16
  17. Andrew DeFaria

    DU Guest

    Richard Cornford wrote:

    > rh wrote:
    >
    >>"Richard Cornford" wrote:

    >
    > <snip>
    >


    [snipped]

    >
    > There is nothing that can be done to force people to post in any
    > particular way, but if someone announces their intention to try to waste
    > my time I can mitigate the effect by choosing not to spend my time on
    > their posts (not giving them my time so they cannot waste it).
    >
    > Of course my reaction may not be everyone else's, which is why I
    > described it as a gamble. But my experience suggest that the majority of
    > the regular (and most informed/potentially useful) contributors to this
    > group, probably because incorrect posting style impacts more on regular
    > participants, are supporters of the observance of the conventions and
    > they do react to individuals how will not observe them by not answering
    > their questions.
    >
    > Whitens the number of threads in which people are asked not to top-post,
    > where a top-posted response containing a trivial follow-up question
    > receives no response. I know the answer to the follow-up questions, I
    > know that 20-odd other regular contributors to the group also know the
    > answer, but still it isn't posted. Coincidence or reaction?
    >
    > Generally, when people express an unwillingness to go out of their way
    > for the benefit of those around them, expecting assistance when in need
    > is unrealistic.
    >
    > Richard.
    >
    >


    Richard, please move on. Some people will never budge, will never admit
    defeat, will never comply with whatever standards there is for the
    general/public good.

    Most people come in this newsgroup hungry for answers and solutions:
    don't bother them with usenet standards, reading FAQs, top-posting, or
    searching in newsgroup archives or learning from online tutorials etc.
    and things like that. They want answers, solutions, perfectly fitted,
    manageable, digestable solutions to their belly-button problem/webpages
    and anything that isn't going in that same direction is an annoyance, an
    enemy, an obstacle to their goal, a stupid waste of their precious time,
    etc.. Almost like road rage. Just like Homer Simpson with donuts, hot
    dogs, Krusty burgers, etc. Some of them will even tell you with utmost
    seriousness that the purpose of this newsgroup is to serve them and to
    give them help.

    FWIW, Mozilla Mail & Newsgroup client has a setting for these people:
    {not Message filters :)}
    but
    View/Message Body As/Plain Text
    I've been using it for over 2 years now and never got a problem and
    rarely noticed that the poster was sending HTML messages. It's still not
    the best solution but at least it gives me results I wish for.

    DU
     
    DU, Jun 8, 2004
    #17
  18. JRS: In article <ca3ijn$9en$>, seen in
    news:comp.lang.javascript, DU <> posted at
    Tue, 8 Jun 2004 01:25:15 :
    >
    >Most people come in this newsgroup hungry for answers and solutions:
    >don't bother them with usenet standards, reading FAQs, top-posting, or
    >searching in newsgroup archives or learning from online tutorials etc.
    >and things like that. They want answers, solutions, perfectly fitted,
    >manageable, digestable solutions to their belly-button problem/webpages
    >and anything that isn't going in that same direction is an annoyance, an
    >enemy, an obstacle to their goal, a stupid waste of their precious time,
    >etc.



    Compliant questioners get better results; but this will only be noticed
    by the more attentive regulars.

    In order that worthy but ignorant non-compliant questioners can get
    better results, it is necessary for proper practice to be pointed out.

    Some then comply, and get what they deserve.
    Some fail to comply, and also get what they deserve.
    Some argue, and should then be ignored.

    But one must also remember that articles of remonstration are read by
    future posters other than the remonstratee; and the more sagacious of
    these future posters will amend their ways in advance of posting -
    therein lies the major benefit.

    The late Admiral Byng should have been of considerable benefit to the
    Navy, in the manner recognised by Voltaire in "Candide".

    --
    © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
    <URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/> Jim Ley's FAQ for news:comp.lang.javascript
    <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
    <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
     
    Dr John Stockton, Jun 8, 2004
    #18
  19. DU <> writes:

    > Richard, please move on. Some people will never budge, will never
    > admit defeat, will never comply with whatever standards there is for
    > the general/public good.


    True, but there are also those that will change their ways when
    explained why the other way is better. Since Richard's message was
    very well stated, it gives people all possible chances to begin
    posting according to standard and tradition.

    > Most people come in this newsgroup hungry for answers and solutions:
    > don't bother them with usenet standards, reading FAQs, top-posting, or
    > searching in newsgroup archives or learning from online tutorials
    > etc. and things like that.


    It's very simple: People willing to make an effort when posting, both
    form and content, are worth doing doing an effort to help. The rest
    .... well, who cares?

    There is not enough time to help everybody. Advising people to change
    the way they quote can be as big a help as solving their current
    problem, because it will also help them get their future problems
    solved easier.


    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
    DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
    'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
     
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Jun 8, 2004
    #19
  20. /Andrew DeFaria/:
    > Lee wrote:
    >
    >> Then there are the prospective employers who Google to see what this
    >> "Andrew DeFaria" has contributed, and find out that you have no
    >> respect for established conventions, or for other people.

    >
    > Again, sorry, but for the most part this doesn't happen either. Then
    > again, surprise, surprise, HTML *IS* a standard! Perhaps sometime in
    > your life you'll be able to wake up from your 60's ASCII is king, ASCII
    > only haze and change and see that.


    What ASCII have to do with the group requirement that the messages
    should be posted in plain text format and not in HTML? The plain
    text format is chosen so most of the people will benefit. If you
    really want to contribute - please, abide the group conventions.

    BTW, you're posting your messages in multipart/alternative where you
    post two versions of every message of yours - it is just unnecessary
    waste.

    --
    Stanimir
     
    Stanimir Stamenkov, Jun 9, 2004
    #20
    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. nfedin

    Datagrid Edit events all screwy...

    nfedin, Dec 3, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
    nfedin
    Dec 3, 2003
  2. Chris Calhoun
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    288
    Jim Cheshire [MSFT]
    Oct 10, 2003
  3. George Hester

    keyup keydown Netscape > 4.x

    George Hester, Jan 15, 2004, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    112
    George Hester
    Jan 16, 2004
  4. Frank O'Hara

    Can't cancel keyup event.

    Frank O'Hara, Apr 26, 2007, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    140
    Martin Honnen
    Apr 26, 2007
  5. Gregor Kofler
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    352
    Gregor Kofler
    Oct 8, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page