I have the following in my webpage:
<body onresize=CenterIt(); onMouseMove=mouseCheck(event);>
CenterIt and mouseCheck are my own javascript functions. Works fine for IE
and Opera, doesn't even go into the function for Firefox or Netscape. Is
there a different way to assign functions to events that will be understood
by "all" browsers? Thanks!
36  3520 
Simon Wigzell wrote: I have the following in my webpage:
<body onresize=CenterIt(); onMouseMove=mouseCheck(event);>
Is there a different way to assign functions to events that
will be understood by "all" browsers? Thanks!
Try writing formally valid HTML.
Richard.
Oh thank you so much! You are so kind and so helpfull! Now I know how what I
did wrong! Now I can solve my problem! You are so wonderfull!
Can I send you some money as a reward for your deep insight and wisdom?
"Richard Cornford" <Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da*******************@news.demon.co.uk... Simon Wigzell wrote: I have the following in my webpage:
<body onresize=CenterIt(); onMouseMove=mouseCheck(event);>
Is there a different way to assign functions to events that
will be understood by "all" browsers? Thanks!
Try writing formally valid HTML.
Richard.
"Simon Wigzell" <si**********@shaw.ca> wrote: I have the following in my webpage:
<body onresize=CenterIt(); onMouseMove=mouseCheck(event);>
CenterIt and mouseCheck are my own javascript functions. Works fine for IE
and Opera, doesn't even go into the function for Firefox or Netscape. Is
there a different way to assign functions to events that will be understood
by "all" browsers? Thanks!
IMHO your HTML syntax is wrong and I'm rather surprised that IE
understands it. Try:
<body onresize="CenterIt();" onmousemove="mouseCheck(event);">
--
Tim Slattery Sl********@bls.gov
Simon Wigzell wrote:
<top-posting fixed> Richard Cornford wrote: Simon Wigzell wrote: I have the following in my webpage:
<body onresize=CenterIt(); onMouseMove=mouseCheck(event);>
Is there a different way to assign functions to events that
will be understood by "all" browsers? Thanks!
Try writing formally valid HTML.
Oh thank you so much! You are so kind and so helpfull!
Now I know how what I did wrong! Now I can solve my
problem! You are so wonderfull!
<snip>
If you validated your HTML the validator would tell you what was wrong
with it and you wouldn't have to ask.
Richard.
Tim Slattery wrote : "Simon Wigzell" <si**********@shaw.ca> wrote:
I have the following in my webpage:
<body onresize=CenterIt(); onMouseMove=mouseCheck(event);>
CenterIt and mouseCheck are my own javascript functions. Works fine for IE
and Opera, doesn't even go into the function for Firefox or Netscape. Is
there a different way to assign functions to events that will be understood
by "all" browsers? Thanks!
IMHO your HTML syntax is wrong and I'm rather surprised that IE
understands it. Try:
<body onresize="CenterIt();" onmousemove="mouseCheck(event);">
--
Tim Slattery
Sl********@bls.gov
There is no onresize event handler for the body element in HTML 4.01: so
that too is invalid.
The window.event property is MSIE-specific. MSIE does not support DOM 2
Events interface. So both Firefox and Netscape should reply in their
javascript console that "event is an undefined object".
Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Simon Wigzell wrote : Oh thank you so much! You are so kind and so helpfull! Now I know how what I
did wrong! Now I can solve my problem! You are so wonderfull!
Can I send you some money as a reward for your deep insight and wisdom?
You may find Richard's answer irritating and frustrating but I assure
you that the very first thing to do when facing a layout or error or a
problem of some sort is to make sure that the markup code is well-formed
and valid and that the CSS code is valid and does not generate parsing
errors. Often, the source of problems is there or starts there.
So:
- onresize is not a valid attribute for body element; you would possibly
want the resize event to be registered on the window object instead
- event is a proprietary object in MSIE 5+
- MSIE 6 does not support DOM 2 Events attributes and methods
Crossbrowser DOM Scripting: Event Handlers http://www.scottandrew.com/weblog/articles/cbs-events
There you go.
Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:32:00 -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=
<ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote: Tim Slattery wrote : IMHO your HTML syntax is wrong and I'm rather surprised that IE
understands it. Try:
<body onresize="CenterIt();" onmousemove="mouseCheck(event);">
There is no onresize event handler for the body element in HTML 4.01: so
that too is invalid.
You've not got enough information to say that, he may be using a
doctype, or internal subset with an onresize attribute for body. The
brackets problems are not solvable in a document you can serve as
text/html.
Jim.
Gérard Talbot <ne***********@gtalbot.org> writes: Tim Slattery wrote :
<body onresize="CenterIt();" onmousemove="mouseCheck(event);">
The window.event property is MSIE-specific. MSIE does not support DOM
2 Events interface. So both Firefox and Netscape should reply in their
javascript console that "event is an undefined object".
No. Inside an intrinsic event handler, all current browsers make the
triggering event available as a variable called "event". IE just uses
a global variable, the other browsers use a local one (I guess Opera
might do both :).
So, try it before you bash it :)
/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.'
Jim Ley wrote : On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:32:00 -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=
<ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote:
Tim Slattery wrote :
IMHO your HTML syntax is wrong and I'm rather surprised that IE
understands it. Try:
<body onresize="CenterIt();" onmousemove="mouseCheck(event);">
There is no onresize event handler for the body element in HTML 4.01: so
that too is invalid.
You've not got enough information to say that, he may be using a
doctype, or internal subset with an onresize attribute for body.
Well, I was referring to HTML 4.01. And I always assume that (a standard
doctype) as default when someone post.
If I remember correctly, in such case (internal error correction
mechanism), Mozilla-based browsers and MSIE assign the resize event to
the window object by default.
I wanted to point out the invalid attribute.
The brackets problems are not solvable in a document you can serve as
text/html.
Jim.
I don't understand that last part: what brackets problems? You mean
missing quote " signs?.. ok then :) Yes, missing the quotes is decisive.
Cheers,
Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:51:48 -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=
<ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote: Jim Ley wrote : You've not got enough information to say that, he may be using a
doctype, or internal subset with an onresize attribute for body.
Well, I was referring to HTML 4.01. And I always assume that (a standard
doctype) as default when someone post.
You can't do that however, especially as the W3 standard doctypes are
not the only ones that user agents support, particularly onresize on
body which is supported by the majority of user agents.
If I remember correctly, in such case (internal error correction
mechanism), Mozilla-based browsers and MSIE assign the resize event to
the window object by default.
This is not "internal error correction" it's the documented behaviour
for the user agents.
Jim.
Jim Ley a écrit : On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:51:48 -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=
<ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote:
Jim Ley wrote :
You've not got enough information to say that, he may be using a
doctype, or internal subset with an onresize attribute for body.
Well, I was referring to HTML 4.01. And I always assume that (a standard
doctype) as default when someone post.
You can't do that however, especially as the W3 standard doctypes are
not the only ones that user agents support,
Well, unless specified otherwise by a poster, I will assume a standard
doctype, not a custom or oddball doctype decl.
particularly onresize on body which is supported by the majority of user agents.
onresize seems to be supported by the body element but it's the window
object that gets+handles the resize event in such case.
onresize usage on the body element is not valid. Not according to HTML
4.01 specs.
Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen a écrit : Gérard Talbot <ne***********@gtalbot.org> writes:
Tim Slattery wrote :
<body onresize="CenterIt();" onmousemove="mouseCheck(event);">
The window.event property is MSIE-specific. MSIE does not support DOM
2 Events interface. So both Firefox and Netscape should reply in their
javascript console that "event is an undefined object".
No. Inside an intrinsic event handler, all current browsers make the
triggering event available as a variable called "event". IE just uses
a global variable, the other browsers use a local one (I guess Opera
might do both :).
So, try it before you bash it :)
/L
Hello Lasse,
Ok, I will try it.
I tried to contact you several weeks ago. I wrote this document http://developer-test.mozilla.org/en/docs/window.open
(at least its original, initial version)
and added your article as a reference. Just thought you wanted to know.
Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:19:40 -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=
<ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote: particularly onresize on
body which is supported by the majority of user agents.
onresize seems to be supported by the body element but it's the window
object that gets+handles the resize event in such case.
So, that's completlely irrelevant.
onresize usage on the body element is not valid.
Please understand, that it's potentially completely valid, even with
an HTML 4.01 strict doctype declaration, you can just add it into the
internal subset. The reason I'm discussing this is that your post was
misleading, the onresize in body is well supported, almost certainly
the preferred way to declare onresize, and well documented in Mozilla
FireFox, as well as other user agents.
Not according to HTML 4.01 specs.
We have no reason to believe the OP was using HTML 4.01
Jim.
Gérard Talbot <ne***********@gtalbot.org> writes: http://developer-test.mozilla.org/en/docs/window.open
(at least its original, initial version)
and added your article as a reference. Just thought you wanted to know.
Very nice, at a glance. I'll read it through as soon as I get the time :)
/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.'
"Simon Wigzell" <si**********@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Pzeze.1892161$Xk.818923@pd7tw3no... I have the following in my webpage:
<body onresize=CenterIt(); onMouseMove=mouseCheck(event);>
CenterIt and mouseCheck are my own javascript functions. Works fine for IE
and Opera, doesn't even go into the function for Firefox or Netscape. Is
there a different way to assign functions to events that will be
understood by "all" browsers? Thanks!
I have resolved my problem. This is what I have to do:
<body>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
checkmouse = 0;
checkresize = 0;
document.onmousemove = mouseCheck;
function mouseCheck()
{
if (checkmouse == 0)
{
alert("Mouse Moved");
checkmouse = 1;
}
}
window.onresize = resizeCheck;
function resizeCheck()
{
if (checkresize == 0)
{
alert("Resize");
checkresize = 1;
}
}
</script>
</body>
Now couldn't one of you have just answered my question and told me this
instead of all this jibber jabber????
Thanks anyway!
Jim Ley wrote : On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:19:40 -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=
<ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote:
particularly onresize on
body which is supported by the majority of user agents.
onresize seems to be supported by the body element but it's the window
object that gets+handles the resize event in such case.
So, that's completlely irrelevant.
I do not understand why you say it's completely irrelevant.
How often does one resize the body element without using the resizing
window handles of a browser window?
I do not know of a single occurence or webpage where one resizes the
body element without resizing the browser window; theoretically, that
should be doable, possible.
<body onresize="...">
is invalid markup code. That markup code is supported by many browsers
because the onresize event handler gets handled by the window, not the
body element. That's why I referred to internal browser error mechanism.
onresize usage on the body element is not valid.
Please understand, that it's potentially completely valid, even with
an HTML 4.01 strict doctype declaration, you can just add it into the
internal subset.
I understand that it's potentially completely valid. But it's not valid
with a standard HTML 4.01 doctype declaration. onresize attribute is not
listed anywhere in the HTML 4.01 spec.:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/attributes.html
onresize attribute for body element is not even listed as deprecated either.
How often do you see web authors/web pages using a custom DTD or a
modified DTD or an extended DTD?
How often do you see people saying in this newsgroup that they use a
custom DTD or a modified DTD or an extended DTD?
<body asdf="ghjk">
is invalid markup code. But then if one has to always add that this is
in cases where a custom DTD or extended/modified DTD is not used, then
posting in this newsgroup can/should become very long, tediously
explicit, excessively exact, miserably cautious, mono-maniacally detailed.
The reason I'm discussing this is that your post was misleading,
I said word for word this:
"There is no onresize event handler for the body element in HTML 4.01:
so that too is invalid."
and you're saying my post was misleading.
the onresize in body is well supported, almost certainly the preferred way to declare onresize,
Well that way should not be the preferred way to declare and use the
onresize attribute. In HTML 4.01. When using an official W3C doctype. In
a non-modified DTD. In a non-custm DTD. In a very vast majority of
webpages on the web.
Is that the way we should always post from now on?
and well documented in Mozilla FireFox,
Ok go ahead: bring the url at mozilla.org where it says that <body
onresize="..."> is valid, ok, good enough, preferable or whatever.
as well as other user agents.
Not according to HTML 4.01 specs.
We have no reason to believe the OP was using HTML 4.01
Jim.
Above 99% of all webpages on the web and above 99% of people posting in
this newsgroup do not use a custom DTD nor an extended/modified DTD.
Without any url from the OP, without any sufficient chunk of relevant
code pasted from the OP, without any kind of useful data from the OP
post from the OP, why shouldn't I assume he is using HTML 4.01? standard
HTML 4.01 that is. Non-modified HTML 4.01 DTD.
Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:02:10 -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=
<ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote: <body onresize="...">
is invalid markup code.
Stop repeating that fact, it's not invalid, it may be invalid in some
documents, but it's not invalid in all.
I understand that it's potentially completely valid. But it's not valid
with a standard HTML 4.01 doctype declaration.
It can still be, consider the internal subset.
How often do you see web authors/web pages using a custom DTD or a
modified DTD or an extended DTD?
Lots.
the onresize in body is well supported, almost certainly the preferred way to declare onresize,
Well that way should not be the preferred way to declare and use the
onresize attribute.
Sure it should, it's the method that most works.
Is that the way we should always post from now on?
We should post the most sensible advice, and for registering an
onresize event <body onresize is appropriate. You could against argue
that it's not, but if your only argument is about validity, then it's
not a good one, as it can be perfectly valid.
and well documented in Mozilla FireFox,
Ok go ahead: bring the url at mozilla.org where it says that <body
onresize="..."> is valid, ok, good enough, preferable or whatever.
eh? it's documented do onresize site:mozilla.org in your favourite
search engine and read the documentation.
Above 99% of all webpages on the web and above 99% of people posting in
this newsgroup do not use a custom DTD nor an extended/modified DTD.
No 99% of all the web pages are invalid, a minority of some boiler
plate gibberish at the top they don't understand, but that's not
particularly relevant.
<body onresize is the most appropriate, if your work flows involve
valid HTML, then there are trivial scenarios you can use, as anyone
who's validating their mark-up should know about.
Jim.
Jim Ley escribió: and well documented in MozillaFireFox,
Ok go ahead: bring the url at mozilla.org where it says that <body
onresize="..."> is valid, ok, good enough, preferable or whatever.
eh? it's documented do onresize site:mozilla.org in your favourite
search engine and read the documentation.
Keeping your "absolute strict" way for stating things, your post is
misleading because... do all search engines (or, at least, all search
engines which are favourite for, at least again, one person in the
world) support the "site:" rule syntax?
Of course you were referring to Google above all. And, if I insert those
terms on google, I don't find anything about "<body onresize="...">". On
the other hand, I see that the first result title is "window.onresize".
Regards,
knocte
--
Simon Wigzell wrote: Oh thank you so much! You are so kind and so helpfull! Now I know how
what I did wrong! Now I can solve my problem! You are so wonderfull!
Can I send you some money as a reward for your deep insight and wisdom?
Your irony is as inappropriate as your posting style.
<http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you>
"Richard Cornford" <Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
[top post]
<http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3>
<http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/pots1.html>
PointedEars
Jim Ley wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 06:19:40 -0400, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=
<ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote:
Eeek. You certainly want to do something about that. onresize usage on the body element is not valid.
Please understand, that it's potentially completely valid, even with
an HTML 4.01 strict doctype declaration, you can just add it into the
internal subset.
No, even if HTML 4.01 were extendable this way (which it is not and which
is why XHTML exists), any user-defined "subset" would not be HTML at all.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt>
PointedEars
--
Bill Gates isn't the devil -- Satan made sure hell
_worked_ before he opened it to the damned ...
Simon Wigzell wrote: "Simon Wigzell" <si**********@shaw.ca> wrote [...] I have the following in my webpage:
<body onresize=CenterIt(); onMouseMove=mouseCheck(event);>
CenterIt and mouseCheck are my own javascript functions. Works fine for
IE and Opera, doesn't even go into the function for Firefox or Netscape.
Is there a different way to assign functions to events that will be
understood by "all" browsers? Thanks!
I have resolved my problem. This is what I have to do:
<body>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
As already said, the `language' attribute is deprecated in HTML 4.
checkmouse = 0;
checkresize = 0;
Variables should be declared before defined, using the `var' keyword.
[...]
Now couldn't one of you have just answered my question and
told me this instead of all this jibber jabber????
Yes, one could. However, this is not a support forum but a discussion
group. Now could you please either change your attitude by 180°, or go
away and never return?
Thanks anyway!
Thanks in advance.
PointedEars
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:24:24 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.de> wrote: Jim Ley wrote: Please understand, that it's potentially completely valid, even with
an HTML 4.01 strict doctype declaration, you can just add it into the
internal subset.
No, even if HTML 4.01 were extendable this way (which it is not and which
is why XHTML exists),
Please don't talk rubbish, HTML 4.01 is SGML just as XHTML is and is
fully able to be extended using any valid SGML constructs, including
internal subsets.
any user-defined "subset" would not be HTML at all.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt>
Which is completely irrelevant and says nothing blocking the
situation, indeed it gives licence for just about anything to be
served as text/html.
Jim.
"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <Po*********@web.de> wrote in message
news:51****************@PointedEars.de... Simon Wigzell wrote:
"Simon Wigzell" <si**********@shaw.ca> wrote [...] I have the following in my webpage:
<body onresize=CenterIt(); onMouseMove=mouseCheck(event);>
CenterIt and mouseCheck are my own javascript functions. Works fine for
IE and Opera, doesn't even go into the function for Firefox or Netscape.
Is there a different way to assign functions to events that will be
understood by "all" browsers? Thanks!
I have resolved my problem. This is what I have to do:
<body>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
As already said, the `language' attribute is deprecated in HTML 4.
checkmouse = 0;
checkresize = 0;
Variables should be declared before defined, using the `var' keyword.
[...]
Now couldn't one of you have just answered my question and
told me this instead of all this jibber jabber????
Yes, one could. However, this is not a support forum but a discussion
group. Now could you please either change your attitude by 180°, or go
away and never return?
Thanks anyway!
Thanks in advance.
PointedEars
98% of the posts here are of the "how do I ..." kind. There are certain
people who just like to come on here with a snotty attitude and boost there
egos rather than actually helping the person who is asking for help. This
post of mine is the perfect example. Especially when it comes to browser
compatibility issues - then the snot really starts to fly.
I will neither change my attitude nor go away. If you don't like my posts
then filter them out or ignore them.
Jim Ley wrote: [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote: Jim Ley wrote: Please understand, that it's potentially completely valid, even with
an HTML 4.01 strict doctype declaration, you can just add it into the
internal subset.
No, even if HTML 4.01 were extendable this way (which it is not and which
is why XHTML exists),
Please don't talk rubbish, HTML 4.01 is SGML just as XHTML is and is
fully able to be extended using any valid SGML constructs, including
internal subsets.
The ability to extend HTML which is provided by SGML is restricted
by current Internet quasi-standards. Such extended HTML is no longer
Valid HTML. Which is one important reason why XHTML exists.
any user-defined "subset" would not be HTML at all.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt>
Which is completely irrelevant
No, it certainly is not.
and says nothing blocking the situation, [...]
It makes it quite clear that only the W3C has the authority to define
what HTML is (from then on):
| The IETF HTML working group closed Sep 1996, and work on defining
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| HTML moved to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The proposed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| extensions were incorporated to some extent in [HTML32], and to a
| larger extent in [HTML40]. The definition of multipart/form-data from
| [UPLOAD] was described in [FORMDATA]. In addition, a reformulation of
| HTML 4.0 in XML 1.0[XHTML1] was developed.
Find me a section in the HTML 4.01 Specification of the W3C that says that
HTML may be extended using SGML, especially one that contradicts with its
section 7.2, and I concur.
PointedEars
Simon Wigzell wrote: "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <Po*********@web.de> wrote [...]: Simon Wigzell wrote: [...]
Now couldn't one of you have just answered my question and
told me this instead of all this jibber jabber????
Yes, one could. However, this is not a support forum but a discussion
group. Now could you please either change your attitude by 180°, or go
away and never return?
[...]
98% of the posts here are of the "how do I ..." kind. There are certain
people who just like to come on here with a snotty attitude and boost
there egos rather than actually helping the person who is asking for help.
This post of mine is the perfect example. Especially when it comes to
browser compatibility issues - then the snot really starts to fly.
What part of "discussion group" did you not understand?
I will neither change my attitude nor go away. If you don't like my posts
then filter them out or ignore them.
Will do. Which is your problem, not mine.
PointedEars
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:35:35 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.de> wrote: Jim Ley wrote: Please don't talk rubbish, HTML 4.01 is SGML just as XHTML is and is
fully able to be extended using any valid SGML constructs, including
internal subsets.
The ability to extend HTML which is provided by SGML is restricted
by current Internet quasi-standards.
So previously your argued that it would not be valid HTML, now you
concede it's only some gibberish about quasi-standards that stop it.
Which is interesting, as you're saying we can't use onresize in a body
element because quasi-standards stop us? despite the fact that all
user agents either support or ignore such an attribute.
Such extended HTML is no longer
Valid HTML.
Yes it is. Stop talking rubbish, or back up your statement by
references to the W3c specification.
Find me a section in the HTML 4.01 Specification of the W3C that says that
HTML may be extended using SGML, especially one that contradicts with its
section 7.2, and I concur.
the text/html RFC is not limited to HTML 4.01, it's as simple as that.
the Registration does not say that it is. In addition the fact that
HTML 4.01 is clearly stated to be an application of SGML, indeed the
internal subset is not even listed in the appendix which recommends
you avoid SGML features...
Jim.
Jim Ley wrote: [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote: Jim Ley wrote: Please don't talk rubbish, HTML 4.01 is SGML just as XHTML is and is
fully able to be extended using any valid SGML constructs, including
internal subsets. The ability to extend HTML which is provided by SGML is restricted
by current Internet quasi-standards.
So previously your argued that it would not be valid HTML, now you
concede it's only some gibberish about quasi-standards that stop it.
No, it is the same statement as before, just more in detail. "Extended"
HTML is not Valid HTML because of the reasons given (until contradictory
proof has been provided by you).
Which is interesting, as you're saying we can't use onresize
in a body element because quasi-standards stop us?
No, because W3C "stops" you (who's "us"?).
Quasi-standards define how the Web works. What is not even
covered by quasi-standards has little chance to be implemented.
despite the fact that all user agents either support or ignore such
an attribute.
Which is proprietary behavior. Invalid proprietary code should be
avoided when not necessary. There is a way to write Valid HTML
and using the event handler; this approach should be taken, even
if not standardized as well because there is no implemented 100%
standards compliant DOM.
Such extended HTML is no longer Valid HTML.
Yes it is. Stop talking rubbish, or back up your statement by
references to the W3c specification.
No! (Why is it that so many participants of discussions do not know the
most basic rules of discussion?)
*You* made the original claim that HTML can be extended and be still Valid
(and I mean Valid regarding a standardized HTML specification, not only
any validator program), *you* are the one to prove that; it is certainly
not me to prove the opposite to prove you wrong (although I already did
that, you just don't recognize it).
Find me a section in the HTML 4.01 Specification of the W3C that says
that HTML may be extended using SGML, especially one that contradicts
with its section 7.2, and I concur.
the text/html RFC is not limited to HTML 4.01, it's as simple as that.
Right, by stating that authority over HTML has been transferred to the
W3C, it includes all HTML Recommendations published by the W3C and simply
mentions that there are proprietary extensions:
| In addition to the development of standards, a wide variety of additional
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| extensions, restrictions, and modifications to HTML were popularized by
| NCSA's Mosaic system and subsequently by the competitive implementations
| of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer; these extensions
| are documented in numerous books and online guides.
However, those are not longer to be served as text/html:
| 2. Registration of MIME media type text/html
|
| [...]
| Published specification:
| The text/html media type is now [June 2000, the ed.] defined by
| W3C Recommendations; the latest published version is [HTML401].
| In addition, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is
| compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as
| text/html.
Of all the HTML Recommendations published by the W3C, only HTML 3.2
and HTML 4.01 are still active and Valid.
[...]
Despite considerable proof you still want to deny that the RFC actively
transferred authority over HTML to the W3C (even though it only states
what has already happened 9 years ago) and that both HTML 3.2 and
HTML 4.01 Specifications clearly state which document type declarations
are to be used in Valid HTML while not providing ANY proof that backs up
your original, contradictory, claim? That's ridiculous.
PointedEars
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: checkmouse = 0;
checkresize = 0;
Variables should be declared before defined, using the `var' keyword.
That depends, 100%, on what you are defining it for, and what scope you
want on the variable.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:12:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Po*********@web.de> wrote: Jim Ley wrote: So previously your argued that it would not be valid HTML, now you
concede it's only some gibberish about quasi-standards that stop it.
No, it is the same statement as before, just more in detail. "Extended"
HTML is not Valid HTML because of the reasons given (until contradictory
proof has been provided by you).
You have given no proof at all, all you've done is repeatedly asserted
a fact which is completely in variance to the HTML 4.01 specificaiton,
which clearly states that it is an application of SGML.
Quasi-standards define how the Web works. What is not even
covered by quasi-standards has little chance to be implemented.
Except of course that onresize is completely supported so your claims
about it being not is now the exact opposite of the current claim.
Which is proprietary behavior. Invalid proprietary code should be
avoided when not necessary.
Rubbish, I repeatedly see you using document in your examples, it's
never needed in the scripts, but you continue to use it, de-facto
standards have great value - as you were arguing above, where it was a
de-facto standard you cared about not the actual one.
*You* made the original claim that HTML can be extended and be still Valid
(and I mean Valid regarding a standardized HTML specification, not only
any validator program),
That's what VALID means in SGML, it's very, it's very simple, that's
all VALID means, you can't override the terms and claim other things
in technical subjects.
However, those are not longer to be served as text/html:
Where does it say that? the RFC places no restrictions on what may be
served as text/html .
Jim.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip> No! (Why is it that so many participants of discussions do
not know the most basic rules of discussion?)
<snip>
It hasn't occurred to you that when you find yourself at odds with a
large group of seemingly reasonable and rational individuals it might be
time to question your perception of the 'rules'?
My inclination in the past has been to dismiss the more irrational
aspects of your posts as the product of your attempting to communicate
in a second(+) language. But recently you have stated demanding some
sort of 'proof', disregarding the logical reality that outside of
mathematics (and often inside it) nothing can be proved. i.e. the true
cannot be know to be true (at lest when the subject is not tautological
or trivial).
What logic is capable of doing is revealing the false (at least when the
subject is not metaphysical). That reality has a manifestation in debate
where when an assertion is made that you don't agree with you get to say
"This is not true because ...", and attempt to provide an argument that
the individual making the assertion will recognise as a refutation.
Simple assertions of "No" or "Nonsense" or "I am right and you are
wrong" are not contributions towards a debate.
Demanding 'proof' is the politician's excuse for inaction. A purely
rhetorical ploy that when directed towards those that appreciate the
impossibility of proof (i.e. scientists and the like) cannot be
answered, but is sufficient to impress the not so well educated masses.
Richard.
Jim Ley wrote:
Please don't talk rubbish, HTML 4.01 is SGML just as XHTML is and is
fully able to be extended using any valid SGML constructs, including
internal subsets.
My understanding is that HTML is a *subset* of SGML and that it is not
actually SGML at all. You cannot write SGML documents in HTML although
you *can* write HTML documents in SGML. That is rather an important
difference.
Similarly, XHTML is *not* a subset of SGML at all but is based on XML
and uses standard XML (which is a *super*set of SGML) to represent an
existing subset of SGML, namely HTML. You can write an SGML document in
XML, an XHTML document in XML but not an SGML document in XHTML nor an
XML document in SGML.
I think that if we go down the route of "this is just that, so we can do
what we like" is actually confusing especially for newcomers to the
subject. Technically, you are correct and it is possible to include
features from supersets int subsets and that would, as you say, make
HTML 4+ extensible but that is not the way HTML was meant to be used.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:01:03 +0100, The Magpie
<us****@mpreston.demon.co.uk> wrote: Jim Ley wrote:
Please don't talk rubbish, HTML 4.01 is SGML just as XHTML is and is
fully able to be extended using any valid SGML constructs, including
internal subsets.
My understanding is that HTML is a *subset* of SGML and that it is not
actually SGML at all.
Then it's poor understanding. HTML is an SGML Application, it's not a
subset of SGML.
Similarly, XHTML is *not* a subset of SGML at all but is based on XML
and uses standard XML (which is a *super*set of SGML)
XML is not a superset of SGML!
Read the first line of the XML 1.1 spec. abstract
< http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml11-20040204/ >
"The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a subset of SGML that is
completely described in this document"
XML is simply a restriction on SGML Applications.
I think that if we go down the route of "this is just that, so we can do
what we like" is actually confusing especially for newcomers to the
subject.
Validation is only worth considering if you understand it, since a
valid document is neither necessary for success on the web, nor is it
sufficient to say that you've followed a specification. using
features that are near universally supported, but happen to be invalid
in a particular version of HTML is worthwhile, then if you understand
validation, and understand why you're doing it, then using a modified
HTML DTD is very useful. Certainly more useful than using confusing
hacks to keep validitiy to a particular type.
Jim.
Richard Cornford wrote: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip> No! (Why is it that so many participants of discussions do
not know the most basic rules of discussion?)
<snip>
It hasn't occurred to you that when you find yourself at odds with a
large group of seemingly reasonable and rational individuals it might
be time to question your perception of the 'rules'?
You must be kidding. The general rules of discussion that I mentioned
have not been set up by me, but described by philosophers long before,
in ancient Greece and Rome to be precise. You probably want to review
your knowledge, perhaps starting with
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion>, continuing with
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument> and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy>.
Until one recognizes that, there is not much point in starting a discussion
anyway because it then does not lead to further knowledge. There is more
to a discussion than just stating that oneself is right and the others are
wrong. Some participants in Usenet have already accepted this; some, which
they obviously demonstrate by their reactions, have not. However, the more
credible arguments and more fruitful discussions tend to originate from the
former group.
PointedEars
Jim Ley wrote: On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:01:03 +0100, The Magpie
<us****@mpreston.demon.co.uk> wrote:
My understanding is that HTML is a *subset* of SGML and that it is not
actually SGML at all.
Then it's poor understanding. HTML is an SGML Application, it's not a
subset of SGML.
See later.Similarly, XHTML is *not* a subset of SGML at all but is based on XML
and uses standard XML (which is a *super*set of SGML)
XML is not a superset of SGML!
Read the first line of the XML 1.1 spec. abstract
< http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml11-20040204/ >
"The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a subset of SGML that is
completely described in this document"
You are quite right - XML is a subset of SGML and I was mistaken.
However, I also note that the equivalent document for HTML also has an
equivalent statement that describes HTML as a subset of SGML. I was
wrong - *both* are subsets of HTML.
This, I would submit, points out the very issue I was raising, namely
the confusion that can easily arise if we consider the issues of subsets
and supersets in discussions.
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:31:59 +0100, The Magpie
<us****@mpreston.demon.co.uk> wrote: Jim Ley wrote:
You are quite right - XML is a subset of SGML and I was mistaken.
However, I also note that the equivalent document for HTML also has an
equivalent statement that describes HTML as a subset of SGML.
Where does it say that? http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/intro/sgmltut.html
is very clear htat it's an SGML Application, it also explains what
that means.
Jim.
Jim Ley wrote: On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:31:59 +0100, The Magpie
<us****@mpreston.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Jim Ley wrote:
You are quite right - XML is a subset of SGML and I was mistaken.
However, I also note that the equivalent document for HTML also has an
equivalent statement that describes HTML as a subset of SGML.
Where does it say that?
I actually looked at the lexical analyser documents for SGML, Jim,
rather than the HTML documents themselves. That, of course, could
equally well be a source of confusion since a we both know there are an
awful lot of documents at the W3C and they don't all agree with each
other all the time. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: M.D. |
last post by:
Hi,
I am having a problem with my program which only happens when using
Mozilla or Firefox.
The pages I wrote, are part of a private web directory, a service
offered by the ISP, which upon...
|
by: dave |
last post by:
where is there a source which shows which css standard, and how much
of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.
|
by: anna |
last post by:
Firefox Mozilla Browser Fonts / Format / rich text / webmail question
I have Comcast. They do not support Firefox so they won't help me.
When I use Mozilla firefox browser to access my web...
|
by: Jarson |
last post by:
My JavaScript is trying to POST data to a CGI script (Perl) using
XMLHttpRequest. My CGI server gets different data from IE than Mozilla
Firefox.
// For Mozilla, req = new XMLHttpRequest();
//...
|
by: Luke Dalessandro |
last post by:
I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for platform specific
(Mozilla/Firefox) javascript problems, so just shout and point me to the
correct newsgroup if I'm being bad.
Here's the deal...
...
| | |
by: autogoor |
last post by:
I want to put a java Applet in a jsp page. Here is what I used:
<jsp:plugin
type="applet"
code="mypackage.myApplet"
width="450"
height="350"
>
<jsp:params>...</jsp:params>
|
by: Alex D. |
last post by:
Hi, I have a frame in one of my pages that I use to show diferent pages each
time. I am experiencing an weird behaviour in Mozilla and Firefox, when the
frame's source is specified in the server...
|
by: Clément |
last post by:
Hi!
I am currently developping a user interface with Ajax/C#/.net. And I am
facing a problem with Mozilla, and Firefox.
I use the function innerHTML to load a Web UserControl into a div, this...
|
by: blueday61 |
last post by:
I am a website newbie, and built my site using a template and NVU.
After I have it operational, I see that it doesn't display correctly in
IE. My site is www.indianacemeteries.org . What do I need...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
| | |
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated ...
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| | |
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence...
| |
