dhtml said:
You probably meant 'rationale'.
I did.
Regardless, that is a loaded statement. It implies that
I usually post BS.
Implies it? I thought "more of your usual BS" said it in as many words.
<form name="testform"></form>
<script>
alert([document.testform, document.testform]);
</script>
Will result in:
Firefox 3, Opera, Safari
object,object
So it is true that browsers still exhibit this old behavior.
So "that is no longer true in most browsers" was an absolutely false
statement then? Not only is it not "no longer true" in "most browsers",
but apparently it is not "no longer true" in any. And presumably as the
wording of the article describes the current reality "it is a little
outdated" was also a false assertion.
I remember testing this previously and getting a different
result, but I modified that test to do something else.
You don't say?
The browser adding form names as properties to the document
creates a bad situation (this is the 'rationale' part).
So this would be the rationale that justified characterising the thing
that never happened as 'fortunate'?
The problem is that can easily creates conflict with existing
properties of the document.
Yes, as mentioned in the document you were erroneously attempting to
'correct'.
When a browser adds a new feature and a new property name
to the document object, document.setTheme, for example, and
a form named 'setTheme' exists, there will be a conflict.
But not a problematic conflict so long as the form element reference
replaces the value of 'new property name' as the document using that
form name could not also attempt to employ a feature that did not exist
at the time of its being authored.
Especially with an object that has as many properties as
document, which vary across many browsers.
Sensible naming convention, such as choosing pertinent names for form
object ("setTheame" doesn't make much sense as the name of a form) and
using non-javascript-like capitalisation (such as initial capital
letters instead of initial lower case) can largely negate the issues.
It's the same problem with having form control names replace
properties of the form. Same rationale except the conflict
exists between form control names and properties on the
FORM element.
Yes, it sounds like the sort of thing that any document on accessing
forms and form controls should mention so people don't stumble into it
unexpectedly.
You are obviously more interested in attempts to insult or
I am not interested in you at all. Stop attempting to waste my time with
irrelevances and nonsense and I will happily ignore you completely.
You discredit yourself when you make factually false or redundant posts.
than you are to have any sort of technical discussion.
What sort of technical discussion do you expect to follow from your
making an obviously false statement?
Richard.