<button type=submit...> and <input type=submit ...>

[Mattia]

Hi!
I have a <form> that can be submitted thruogh three buttons and I need
to tell witch one was pressed when the form was submitted. I now do it
with 3 <input type="submit" name="..." value="...">

with <input type="submit" ...> the only name-value values submitted
(pushed into the query string) is the one of the submit button that was
pushed (if you have many of them).

Ex:
<form ...>
<input type="text" .../>
<input type="submit" name="a" value="click".. ./>
<input type="submit" name="b" value="click2". ../>
<input type="submit" name="c" value="click3". ../>
</form>

in a form like this I can easily distinguish what button was used to
submit the form AFTER SUBMITTING.
but with <button type="submit" name="..." .... > click! </button> all
the name-innertext values are submitted (pushed to the query string)

Ex:
<form ...>
<input type="text" .../>
<button type="submit" name="a"> click </button>
<button type="submit" name="b"> click2 </button>
<button type="submit" name="c"> click3 </button>
</form>

What ways do I have to distinguish what button was used to submit the
form AFTER SUBMITTING?

Is there a way to do it without using javascript?
--
Mattia <ma******@liber o.it>
http://www.chiacchierando.com/

[Brian]

Mattia wrote:

Jukka, i know that rich text, images and javascript hurt your soul of
"pure HTML" programmer. I know you want everything to be plain text,

Strawman argument. He said no such thing. Beside, as this is an html
authoring group, it'd be hard to advocate plain text documents without
going off-topic anyways.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:46:22 +0100, Mattia is reported to have
stated:

Jukka, i know that rich text, images and javascript hurt your soul of
"pure HTML" programmer. I know you want everything to be plain text,

http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/html-smac.html

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Mattia wrote:

I will do what Salagir sugested to do!
Well, here's an interesting snippet of advice from Salagir:

|> Anyway, you describe that you now have a working solution. Just
|> stick to it, and don't create problems by switching to <button>.
|> Simple as that.
|
| If you can, yes, that's even better :)
The problem was: I had a working form with <input type="submit" ..> and
wanted to improve the look of it by substituting it with a <button> tag,
You're absolutely right: you had a working solution, and your problem
was that you wanted to get rid of it. So stop wanting that.
because in a <button> tag you can insert formatted text, images...
Nice idea. Just that browser support for that is worse than crap, in
many of the browsers used out there on the WWW.
Salagir gave me a solution,
Salagir seems to have given you more than one solution. And the
preferred one works, in a WWW context. No big surprises then that it
was also the one that you got from Jukka.
Jukka gave me nothing.
Wrong. You were just too thick to notice it. Strange that you didn't
criticise Salagir for offering you practically the same advice
(quoted above).
Jukka, i know that rich text, images and javascript hurt your soul of
"pure HTML" programmer. I know you want everything to be plain text,
Sturgeon's law proves itself again. QED.
what my boss wants.

Has your boss made a years-long study of engineering web pages for the
WWW? If not, then I know whose judgment I'd rather trust. Especially
when you show that you haven't even comprehended the context of what
Jukka was trying to tell you.

If I thought you were capable of working with it, I might mention
input type=image, but in the circumstances I think you're better off
staying with the submit button. Just possibly with some CSS
suggestions, as long as you keep in mind that they're only
suggestions.

Have fun.

[Salagir]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:54:23 +0000, in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html,
Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Both of those browsers have options to disable scripting.
Yes, they are certainly lots of users with IE and without JS, even if I
do hope they'd do another step and use a real browser. I admit.

But I will stand on my idea for certain cases. Javascript is usefull and
can be used for, by exemple:
- online applications
- page with very complicated forms, like biiiiig <select> you don't
want to load 5 times...
- a neat-cool animation/thingy that won't be missed if JS is disabled
and that's NOT anoying (which exclude the fucking things that follows
your cursor, the snow on the page, etc ;)
Indeed,
every browser has an option to disable scripting: just stick it behind
an appropriate proxy.

What ? How can a proxy have any action on local javascripts ?

I enable javascript with firebird and was never bothered by any pop-up

Oh, I enabled those warnings quite deliberately by choice. I _want_
to be bothered when someone's trying to execute untrusted code on my
computer.

Well, Firebird shows a little icon in the down-left corner :)

You speak about "untrusted code". What does it mean exactly ? I use (and
know how to use) JS only for html-related changes... What kind of
functions are you thinking about ?

and others. For some little details, javascript can be usefull,

You seem to have overlooked the fact that this is an _authoring_
discussion group, and what's more, in a *WWW* context. You don't get
anywhere by arguing with users as to whether they are going to allow
you to execute your javascript on their computer. You do better to
adapt your authoring so that they get the substantive part of your
content.

I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand all the paragraph. You mean that I
should never use JS at all?
....or that we're trolling in the wrong group?

--
++++++++ Zelda, Dragon Ball, Mana and my (art)work at www.salagir.com ++++++++

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Salagir wrote:

What ? How can a proxy have any action on local javascripts ?
What do you understand by "local javascripts"? Bookmarklets, maybe? A
very useful concept indeed, from a user's point of view, but not the
current topic.

What we're talking about here, in contrast, are javascripts sent by
the server as part of the current web page, and possibly executed by
the client. If a proxy (junkbuster, webwasher etc.) filters the
script parts out on the way, then there's nothing for the client to
execute. So this can be effective for any browser, as I said. Some
corporate sites enforce this for all users; some users install
personal proxies of this kind as a security precaution.
You speak about "untrusted code". What does it mean exactly ?
I thought it was self-explanatory, sorry.
I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand all the paragraph. You mean that I
should never use JS at all?

No, I don't mean that at all. I mean that you should design your use
of scripting - at least for the WWW context - to be optional, on the
understanding that some proportion of your readers either cannot or
will not consent to execute it.

[steven15]

your guys sucks, even argu for this kind of stuff.

P.S. I have freedom of speech.