radio button

[stefano]

HI, I have aproblem with XHTML radio button.

<form name=" form">
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
</form>

I want that when the radio is clicked, it is not checked. in other word
I want the click has no effect on the radio.
in IE it work, but in FireFox, the first click check the radio, while
the second, the tirdth, etc.. don't check the radio.
Why the first click is different than the others?

 

[Erwin Moller]

HI, I have aproblem with XHTML radio button.

<form name=" form">
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
</form>

I want that when the radio is clicked, it is not checked. in other word
I want the click has no effect on the radio.
in IE it work, but in FireFox, the first click check the radio, while
the second, the tirdth, etc.. don't check the radio.
Why the first click is different than the others?

Hi

I think a radio object expects one option to be checked.
If you create some options, many browsers will even check the first if you
do not set another one explicitly (CHECKED).

So I think you are relying on strange/buggy behaviour in whatever it is you
are trying to achieve.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

 

[News]

HI, I have aproblem with XHTML radio button.

<form name=" form">
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
</form>

I want that when the radio is clicked, it is not checked. in other word
I want the click has no effect on the radio.
in IE it work, but in FireFox, the first click check the radio, while
the second, the tirdth, etc.. don't check the radio.
Why the first click is different than the others?

<script type="text/javascript">
function click4(myName)
{
document.getElementById(myName).checked=true;
}
</script>

<form name=" form">
<input name="radio1" type="radio" onclick="click4()" />
<input name="radio2" type="radio" onclick="click4()" />
<input name="radio3"type="radio" onclick="click4()" />
<input name="radio4" type="radio" onclick="click4()" />
</form>


Totus possum, totum Deum.
Totus ero, totum meum.
WSW

 

[News]

Sorry I just copied your form forgot the changes I made to it



function click4(myName)
{
document.getElementById(myName).checked=true;
}
</script>

<form name="form">
<input name="radio" id="r1" type="radio" onclick="click4('r4')"/>
<input name="radio" id="r2" type="radio" onclick="click4('r4')"/>
<input name="radio" id="r3" type="radio" onclick="click4('r4')"/>
<input name="radio" id="r4" type="radio" onclick="click4('r4')"/>
</form>

 

[Lee]

News said:

Sorry I just copied your form forgot the changes I made to it

Please don't change the subjects of message threads.

 

[News]

News said:

Please don't change the subjects of message threads.

OK won't again

 

[RobG]

HI, I have aproblem with XHTML radio button.

<form name=" form">
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="return false" />
</form>

I want that when the radio is clicked, it is not checked. in other word
I want the click has no effect on the radio.

Then disable it - no script required:

<input name="radio" type="radio" disabled="disabled" />

Though a better way is to use script to disable it since you will likely
want to use script later to enable it.

It's probably not a good idea to give the buttons a name that is the
same as the value of an HTML attribute, perhaps make the name
'radioGroup01' or similar.

For what it's worth, the following does what you ask (provided script is
enabled):

<input name="radio" type="radio" onclick="this.checked=false;" />


But it does not guarantee that a user can't check the button.

in IE it work, but in FireFox, the first click check the radio, while
the second, the tirdth, etc.. don't check the radio.
Why the first click is different than the others?

What it does for me is keep whichever button I click on first checked,
essentially disabling subsequent clicks. What should 'return false' do
when a radio button is clicked?

 

[Lee]

Duncan Booth said:

On the contrary, always update the subject when it is appropriate so to do.

Usenet messages are threaded by reference header, not by subject, so you
won't break the threads changing the subject except for people using broken
newsreader programs.

Of course it doesn't break the threading, but in some (many? most?)
readers, when viewing thread summaries, the thread is titled according
to its most recent subject.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 8 Feb 2006
13:48:26 remote, seen in Lee

News said:

Please don't change the subjects of message threads.

Disregard that. It's meaningless (a thread does not have a subject;
articles have subjects) and its intent is wrong.

The subject line can and should be changed if the topic of the article
changes enough to justify it.

There's no need to pander to inferior newsreaders that cannot thread
articles on References.

However, the subject line should not be changed arbitrarily or in the
manner in which "News" changed it.

"News" has provided a demonstration of one of the stupidities of Lahn-
style attributions; they become useless where the "author's name" is not
a name, or is unreasonably short or common.

 

[Lee]

Dr John Stockton said:

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 8 Feb 2006
13:48:26 remote, seen in Lee


Disregard that. It's meaningless (a thread does not have a subject;
articles have subjects) and its intent is wrong.

What a silly thing to say.

I don't know of any newsreaders that thread by subject line, but I do
know of more than one that display only the most recent subject line
in a thread when threads are collapsed.

 

[Lee]

Duncan Booth said:

You seem to be missing the point entirely though: the change of subject
which sparked this was inappropriate and pointing this out to the OP would
have been fine, but a blanket 'don't change subjects' is plain wrong.

I understand the point. The blanket statement that the admonision "don't
change subjects" is wrong, is wrong.

I didn't make my point as clearly as I might have. What I am against
is changing the subject entirely so that it is no longer recognizable,
as was done to this thread.

I think we agree.

 

[Lee]

Lee said:

Duncan Booth said:


I understand the point. The blanket statement that the admonision "don't
change subjects" is wrong, is wrong.

I didn't make my point as clearly as I might have. What I am against
is changing the subject entirely so that it is no longer recognizable,
as was done to this thread.

I think we agree.

On re-reading I notice that my "admonision" was wrong. It should have
been an "admonition", of course.