Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

Andrew DeFaria

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.

Jul 23 '05 #1

Subscribe Post Reply

4865

Vincent van Beveren

> 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>

Jul 23 '05 #2

Lee

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.

Jul 23 '05 #3

McKirahan

"Andrew DeFaria" <An****@DeFaria.com> wrote in message
news:4a***************************@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...
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>

Jul 23 '05 #4

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/JavaScri...s/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

Jul 23 '05 #5

Andrew DeFaria

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/JavaScri...s/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?

Jul 23 '05 #6

Andrew Thompson

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:12:29 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

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! ;-)

I myself am limited to testing on IE6,
Moz1.3, NN 4.08, Lynx and Opera (all on XP).

I am *astounded* that you managed to test
you pages on even a small percentage of
the available UA's.

How do you do that?

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Jul 23 '05 #7

Andrew DeFaria

Andrew Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:12:29 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
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! ;-)

I myself am limited to testing on IE6, Moz1.3, NN 4.08, Lynx and
Opera (all on XP).

I am *astounded* that you managed to test you pages on even a small
percentage of the available UA's.

I'm confused! Where did I say I tested my pages on any UA's at all
really?!? Listen this is a system that I'm designing for me, not the
world, though I may eventually offer it up. As such I only really care
that it works on Mozilla (well I use Firefox but that's derivitive) and
perhaps IE (cause I'm currently limited to that at work). Still I will
give nod to standard compliance and I suspect that it will probably work
just find on the other brouwsers like Opera, et. al. In general I don't
go off an use esoteric, possibly browser specific functionality like
ActiveX, etc. And while I like Netscape I have no plans on trying to
support 4.08. Hell there's 6.0 and the 7.x series! I see above you
mention IE 6 but not IE 5. I see is similarly for Netscape.
How do you do that?

Um. I'd get you download and install them then run your pages through
them. I have XP and Linux at home so I can cover that angle if I want.
You could also ask friends that you know that might have access to other
OSes or browsers. But generally I think it's best to code for the
standards and then rely on standards compliances. Isn't that one reason
for standards?

--
If you mated a bulldog and a shitsu, would it be called a bullshit?

Jul 23 '05 #8

Andrew Thompson

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.
..Isn't that one reason
for standards?

Well, 'standards' are a nice ideal,
and a wonderful *concept*... ;-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Jul 23 '05 #9

Richard Cornford

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.

Jul 23 '05 #10

Andrew DeFaria

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.

Jul 23 '05 #11

Andrew DeFaria

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.

Jul 23 '05 #12

Andrew Thompson

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:09:29 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

....

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

So says you!

...and the FAQ. Paragraph 5 of,
<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3>

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Jul 23 '05 #13

Lee

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

Jul 23 '05 #14

Andrew DeFaria

Lee wrote:

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

BFD! Sue me!
--
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.

Jul 23 '05 #15

Lee

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.

Jul 23 '05 #16

Andrew DeFaria

Lee wrote:

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.

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.
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.
Best of luck in life. I think you're going to need it.

Not really.

--
So you're a feminist...Isn't that cute.

Jul 23 '05 #17

Richard Cornford

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

Lee wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mi***********@drn.newsguy.com"
type="cite">Andrew DeFaria said:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Content types for posts to
comp.lang.javascript should be plain text<br>
only.<br><br>
</blockquote><br>
So says you!<br><br>
</blockquote><br>
So says the newsgroup FAQ:<br><br>
<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>
"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3">
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3</a>
</a><br><br>
</blockquote><br>
BFD! Sue me!<br><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.

Jul 23 '05 #18

Andrew DeFaria

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)

Jul 23 '05 #19

"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

Jul 23 '05 #20

Richard Cornford

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.

Jul 23 '05 #21

Richard Cornford

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.

Jul 23 '05 #22

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

Jul 23 '05 #23

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen

DU <dr*******@hotWIPETHISmail.com> 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 - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

Jul 23 '05 #24

Dr John Stockton

JRS: In article <ca**********@news.eusc.inter.net>, seen in
news:comp.lang.javascript, DU <dr*******@hotWIPETHISmail.com> 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.

Jul 23 '05 #25

Stanimir Stamenkov

/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

Jul 23 '05 #26

Andrew DeFaria

"Stanimir Stamenkov" <s7****@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...

/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?

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).

Jul 23 '05 #27

Stanimir Stamenkov

/Andrew DeFaria/:

"Stanimir Stamenkov" <s7****@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
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.

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

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!

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.

--
Stanimir

Jul 23 '05 #28

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?

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!

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

Jul 23 '05 #29

Andrew DeFaria

"Stanimir Stamenkov" <s7****@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...

/Andrew DeFaria/:
"Stanimir Stamenkov" <s7****@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2i************@uni-berlin.de...
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.

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.

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!

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).

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".

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.

Jul 23 '05 #30

Andrew DeFaria

"Lee" <RE**************@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ca*********@drn.newsguy.com...

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?

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

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!

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.

Jul 23 '05 #31

Lee

Andrew DeFaria said:

"Lee" <RE**************@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ca*********@drn.newsguy.com...
Andrew DeFaria said:
>IMHO those 60's ASCII is king types tend to resist change and say withtools >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?

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.

>> 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!

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.

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*.

Jul 23 '05 #32

Andrew DeFaria

Lee wrote:

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

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*.

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?...

--
If a person with multiple personalities threatens suicide, is that
considered a hostage situation?

Jul 23 '05 #33

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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*.

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?

Jul 23 '05 #34

Andrew DeFaria

"Lee" <RE**************@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ca********@drn.newsguy.com...

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.

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.

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.

Jul 23 '05 #35

Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

Similar topics