Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

[Andrew DeFaria]

/Andrew DeFaria/:

What ASCII have to do with the group requirement that the messages
should be posted in plain text format and not in HTML?

IMHO those 60's ASCII is king types tend to resist change and say with tools
that can only do plain text.

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.

Tell me something I don't know. BTW: One part *IS* plain text - just what
you guys wanted!

Stanimir

Of course I believe that Stanimir Stamenkov and I go back quite a few years.
Same old tired argument(s).

 

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

/Andrew DeFaria/:

IMHO those 60's ASCII is king types tend to resist change and say with tools
that can only do plain text.

Plain text could use as many character sets and encodings as HTML
text, so you're making wrong indirection, IMO.

Tell me something I don't know. BTW: One part *IS* plain text - just what
you guys wanted!

That, one of the parts of your multipart/alternative posts is
text/plain doesn't change the fact you're posting an additional copy
in HTML format which doubles the message size, which is the
important thing to mention.

Of course I believe that Stanimir Stamenkov and I go back quite a few years.
Same old tired argument(s).

Then, I don't see why you still insist "you're right" where most
others tell you "you're not". Again, if you want to contribute you
should abide conventions so most people will benefit, even if your
personal taste differ (I'm not saying you're right or wrong).

When most people tell you the plain text is requirement - most
probably it is, you didn't provide any contrary argument as to why
it shouldn't be.

 

[Lee]

Andrew DeFaria said:

IMHO those 60's ASCII is king types tend to resist change and say with tools
that can only do plain text.

There are very good reasons for limiting newsgroups to plain
text. Considering that many of the people who post here make
their livings developing web pages, don't you think your
accusation is a little silly?

Tell me something I don't know. BTW: One part *IS* plain text - just what
you guys wanted!

Not at all. I thought we had made it clear that we're asking
for plain text, *only*.

 

[Andrew DeFaria]

/Andrew DeFaria/:

Plain text could use as many character sets and encodings as HTML
text, so you're making wrong indirection, IMO.

I made no such indirection. Read it again.

That, one of the parts of your multipart/alternative posts is
text/plain doesn't change the fact you're posting an additional copy
in HTML format which doubles the message size, which is the
important thing to mention.

I know that. You know that and everybody else knows that. What's your point?
(I know you don't like it - again, we all know that too).

Then, I don't see why you still insist "you're right" where most
others tell you "you're not".

You are the one making invalid assumptions here! Read it again. I made no
such claim that "I'm right". Scan the words in the quote you quoted me. Do
you see any mention of "I'm right"? No. So then why do you assert this?

Again, if you want to contribute you
should abide conventions so most people will benefit, even if your
personal taste differ (I'm not saying you're right or wrong).

Nor did I say I was right or wrong. Nor did I say that your viewpoint is
right or wrong. Note, here you use the term convention whereas below you
have elevated it to a requirement!

When most people tell you the plain text is requirement - most
probably it is, you didn't provide any contrary argument as to why
it shouldn't be.

As has already been stated it is NOT a requirement - it's a convention. If
it were a requirement then I would not be able to post at all. Call me
unconventional if you want.

 

[Andrew DeFaria]

Andrew DeFaria said:


There are very good reasons for limiting newsgroups to plain
text. Considering that many of the people who post here make
their livings developing web pages, don't you think your
accusation is a little silly?

And they can't find a newsreader that can handle anything but plain text?!?

Not at all. I thought we had made it clear that we're asking
for plain text, *only*.

Hey I know. But you are getting what you asked for, and part that you didn't
ask for. That's all I was saying.

 

[Lee]

Andrew DeFaria said:

And they can't find a newsreader that can handle anything but plain text?!?

You just don't get it, do you? USENET readers shouldn't have to settle for
software that suits the person who's asking for help. Some have to pay by the
minute for connect time. Some prefer not to risk some pinhead posting live code
that will change the size of their window. There are many reasons for asking
for plain text. Think about other people for a minute and maybe you can come up
with some more.

Hey I know. But you are getting what you asked for, and part that you didn't
ask for. That's all I was saying.

Is English your first language? We specifically ask for plain
text *only*. That doesn't mean that adding another 150% of
something else is ok. It means plain text *only*.

 

[Andrew DeFaria]

You just don't get it, do you?

No I get it. I just don't agree with it. Can you "get" that concept?

USENET readers shouldn't have to settle for software that suits the
person who's asking for help.

You are free to ignore me.

Some have to pay by the minute for connect time.

And so how much did they have to pay in this silly, recurring debate?
How much do they pay for the endless quoting and quoting that is
prevalent in Usenet groups?

Some prefer not to risk some pinhead posting live code that will
change the size of their window.

Never met a Usenet posting that resized my window. Besides most readers
allow you to turn off things like JavaScipt.

There are many reasons for asking for plain text.

Yes, I've heard them before....

Is English your first language? We specifically ask for plain text
*only*. That doesn't mean that adding another 150% of something else
is ok. It means plain text *only*.

Duh! I know that! I was just pointing out that what you seek is in
there. In fact it's in there first. When reading news with your plain
text newsreader, after seeing the plain text copy, tell me, 'cause I'm
dying to know, what compels you to read further?!? Why don't you just
skip the HTML copy and move on with it? No, instead you have to berate
people instead of just hitting next.

At this point you're wasting your time, my time and anybody else's time
by continuing to debate this topic. You have your way of doing things. I
have mine. You don't like my way and I'm not particularly fond yours
either. I'm content to allow you to post your way. Can you do the same
for me? (My guess is no).

And really, why can't those plain text newsreader be taught how to
"render" html? I mean on my Linux box when I more an html file it
renders it as text. No biggie. And it tells me if I want to see the raw
HTML then I must append a ":" to the end or the file. Works like a
champ! Easy to use. Now why can't them thar plain text news readers
handle that?!? It's what 2004?...

 

[Lee]

Andrew DeFaria said:

You are free to ignore me.

If this was just a difference of opinion, I wouldn't waste my
time with you, but it's still clear that you simply don't
understand, so there's still hope that something will click
and you'll finally get it. Unfortunately, that requires that
you be willing to at least consider that you might be wrong.

And so how much did they have to pay in this silly, recurring debate?
How much do they pay for the endless quoting and quoting that is
prevalent in Usenet groups?

Think for a moment. Those people haven't been involved in
this debate. They saw that your post was in HTML and have
ignored you.

Never met a Usenet posting that resized my window. Besides most readers
allow you to turn off things like JavaScipt.

Yes, but not all, and that's only one of many reasons.

Duh! I know that! I was just pointing out that what you seek is in
there.

You still don't understand what "only" means? I'm not seeking
the plain text, I'm seeking the elimination of the HTML portion.

Skipping over the extra text doesn't do anything to prevent my
server from filling up with the wasted text. It doesn't make
it take less time to download the day's messages. Do you
really not see that thousands of people having to hit "next
section" so that you can post the way you like isn't really
reasonable?

 

[Andrew DeFaria]

If this was just a difference of opinion, I wouldn't waste my
time with you, but it's still clear that you simply don't
understand, so there's still hope that something will click
and you'll finally get it. Unfortunately, that requires that
you be willing to at least consider that you might be wrong.

For the last time, I DO understand. However I do not agree. Apparently it is
you who do not understand the difference between those two statements. IOW
this is a difference of option, yet you still waste your time. Waste away...

Think for a moment. Those people haven't been involved in
this debate. They saw that your post was in HTML and have
ignored you.

As you could too.

Yes, but not all, and that's only one of many reasons.

Get one that does.

You still don't understand what "only" means?

Yes I do. I was decidedly not addressing the term "only".

I'm not seeking
the plain text, I'm seeking the elimination of the HTML portion.

Then hit next as soon as you see HTML. Viola. Problem solved.

Skipping over the extra text doesn't do anything to prevent my
server from filling up with the wasted text.

Ah the waste issue. IMHO the enormous and often needless quoting of
everything spoken before on the topic trumps that many times over, yet you
do not crusade about this waste. This tells me that waste is really not the
issue. Let alone space is cheap nowadays.

It doesn't make
it take less time to download the day's messages.

My application only downloads the header until you read the message. Many
newsreaders allow you to kill by sender. Kill me. I don't care. And your
problem is over.

Do you
really not see that thousands of people having to hit "next
section" so that you can post the way you like isn't really
reasonable?

I highly doubt that thousands of people read my posts on a day to day basis.
Hit next is easy. I betcha you do it many times a day to skip over articles
that, while in your beloved plain text format, is uninteresting to you. To
answer your question, no I don't think it's unreasonable.