PHP allows control arrays in forms e.g. this is a counter editing script
echo "<input name=\"counterd elname[]\" type=\"hidden\" value=\"";
echo "<input name=\"countern ame[]\" type=\"hidden\"
value=\"".$name str."\">";
echo "<input name=\"newvalue[]\" size=".VALUEWID TH."
value=\"".$valu estr."\">";
echo "<input name=\"delcount er[".$namestr. "]\" type=\"checkbox \">";
The resultant web page might look something like this, in part:
<td><font face="arial,hel vetica" size=2><input
name="delcounte r[www.mysite.co.n z:]" type="checkbox" ></font></td>
<tr><td><font face="arial,hel vetica" size=2><input name="counterna me[]"
type="hidden"
value="www.mysi te.co.nz:/20040313/index.shtml"> www.mysite.co.nz:/20040313
/index.shtml</font></td>
Control arrays in PHP offer significant advantages in processing form
input where there are a variable number of sets of the same elements
repeated multiple times down the page to allow a set of records of the
same data fields to be edited. The form elements are received back in the
processing script as an array which can be dealt with in a
straightforward for loop.
According to HTML 4.0 standards, the name of an Input element should
follow these conventions:
"NAME tokens must begin with a letter ([A-Za-z]) and may be followed by
any number of letters, digits ([0-9]), hyphens ("-"), underscores ("_"),
colons (":"), and periods (".")."
I don't see anything there about the square brackets which are part of
the PHP array syntax, but they seem to be accepted and PHP seems to be
able to turn all the elements it receives into an array on the submission
of the form to the processing script. Is there something in the CGI
conventions or HTML that it does permit this syntax?
Jul 17 '05
21  6460 
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:16:13 +1200, Patrick Dunford
<pa************ @nz.invalid> wrote: The same applies to people who post time wasting replies.
Except that the people writing these replies are the ones you need. You're
behaving a little more pompously than someone who wants help normally
behaves, and that's not speeding things up any.
Verily, verily, on Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:24:40 -0500 in nz.comp article
<op************ **@news.rcn.com >, Neal <ne*****@spamrc n.com> didst
uttereth... On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:16:13 +1200, Patrick Dunford
<pa************ @nz.invalid> wrote:
The same applies to people who post time wasting replies.
Except that the people writing these replies are the ones you need. You're
behaving a little more pompously than someone who wants help normally
behaves, and that's not speeding things up any.
There have been in this thread about two useful replies that stuck to the
subject.
There have been about a dozen time wasting replies.
When I post a question, I expect to see reasonable answers, which I got
from two or three people. Who told me that the answer was that the
attribute was defined in terms of CDATA, which has a different
definition.
The rest of the people, who post about top posting, spelling, cross
posting and other time wasting rants, can just get a life.
You may choose to justify your position, the fact of this matter is that
I have been reading newsgroups for many years, and have seen many
questions asked in computer related groups. The people who have something
worthwhile to contribute, and there are many, don't complain about
pointless crap like top posting, spelling errors or crossposts to only
three groups.
But you can guarantee some idiot will always come along and start
nitpicking and wasting time over something like that.
Verily, verily, on Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:49:25 +0930 in nz.comp article
<14************ *************** ****@40tude.net >, Tim
<ti*@mail.local host.invalid> didst uttereth... On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:42:53 +1200,
Patrick Dunford <pa************ @nz.invalid> posted:
www.mysite.co.nz:/20040313
This is a most unusual way to specify an address. Why have you put a colon
there?
Ordinarily, colons are used in that position to specify a different port to
use (instead of the standard port 80). e.g. http://www.example.com:8000/
Those are URI specifications. That isn't a URI, if you looked at the spec
of the PHP code, it is a countername.
Verily, verily, on Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:24:40 -0500 in nz.comp article
<op************ **@news.rcn.com >, Neal <ne*****@spamrc n.com> didst
uttereth... On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:16:13 +1200, Patrick Dunford
<pa************ @nz.invalid> wrote:
The same applies to people who post time wasting replies.
Except that the people writing these replies are the ones you need. You're
behaving a little more pompously than someone who wants help normally
behaves, and that's not speeding things up any.
Except that YOU haven't contributed anything worthwhile to this thread so
far. You didn't answer my question about PHP, which is what this thread
is about.
There are two useful answers at the very top of this thread. Neither of
them whines about crossposting, spelling, top posting or all the other
whinging that happens in newsgroups.
The fact is, in some newsgroups there are idiots who waste my time and my
bandwidth flaming other people solely on these reasons.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:00:36 +1200, Patrick Dunford
<pa************ @nz.invalid> wrote: Except that YOU haven't contributed anything worthwhile to this thread so
far. You didn't answer my question about PHP, which is what this thread
is about.
Well tell you what. You don't want an answer from me, this is not my area.
So why am I posting in this thread? Both my previous posts have noted that
you're being quite the ass. I'd like to learn more about this myself. If
you're going to ignore the well-intentioned criticism of those in this
group who can help you, I fear the info you and I want to see won't alight.
Two replies could have been more if you hadn't been an ass. I'm simply
being honest about this.
There are two useful answers at the very top of this thread. Neither of
them whines about crossposting, spelling, top posting or all the other
whinging that happens in newsgroups.
And your snide responses came after these. Seems you don't plan on being a
discussing member of the forum, based on your responses to which we
replied. So why are you still here? You got your answers.
I don't go out of my way to be rude. I'm a really nice guy. I'm being
honest with you. Your responses were totally ignorant of conventions this
forum holds to be important. When you devalue them, you devalue US. Think
about that.
The fact is, in some newsgroups there are idiots who waste my time and my
bandwidth flaming other people solely on these reasons.
Then don't bait the flames. Read the ng, learn the protocol, and conform.
Neal On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:00:36 +1200, Patrick Dunford
<pa************ @nz.invalid> wrote:
Except that YOU haven't contributed anything worthwhile to this thread so
far. You didn't answer my question about PHP, which is what this thread
is about.
Well tell you what. You don't want an answer from me, this is not my area.
So why am I posting in this thread? Both my previous posts have noted that
you're being quite the ass. I'd like to learn more about this myself. If
you're going to ignore the well-intentioned criticism of those in this
group who can help you, I fear the info you and I want to see won't alight.
Two replies could have been more if you hadn't been an ass. I'm simply
being honest about this.
There are two useful answers at the very top of this thread. Neither of
them whines about crossposting, spelling, top posting or all the other
whinging that happens in newsgroups.
And your snide responses came after these. Seems you don't plan on being a
discussing member of the forum, based on your responses to which we
replied. So why are you still here? You got your answers.
I don't go out of my way to be rude. I'm a really nice guy. I'm being
honest with you. Your responses were totally ignorant of conventions this
forum holds to be important. When you devalue them, you devalue US. Think
about that.
The fact is, in some newsgroups there are idiots who waste my time and my
bandwidth flaming other people solely on these reasons.
Then don't bait the flames. Read the ng, learn the protocol, and conform.
I have not breached any newsgroup protocol. Crossposting while
discouraged is not a breach of netiquette.
I noticed that Message-ID:
<MP************ ************@ne ws.paradise.net .nz> from Patrick Dunford
contained the following: Then don't bait the flames. Read the ng, learn the protocol, and conform.
I have not breached any newsgroup protocol. Crossposting while
discouraged is not a breach of netiquette.
Crossposting, if appropriate, is perfectly acceptable and infinitely
preferable to multi posting. And it would be difficult to say that your
choice was inappropriate given the nature of the question.
However, saying that you are not interested in "netiquette or political
correctness dross" is not likely to endear you to the Usenet community
at large.
--
Geoff Berrow
Member, UK Usenet Committee
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:53:54 +1200, Patrick Dunford
<pa************ @nz.invalid> posted: There have been in this thread about two useful replies that stuck to the
subject.
There have been about a dozen time wasting replies.
Mostly written by someone attempting to justify their behaviour, with a
rather large amount of effort put in by that one arrogant sod to justify
their position that they'll do as they damn well please, and hang how
annoying it might be to the usenet community.
You posted a message, it's no-longer yours. You got answers, you got a
question (why did you have a colon in that place?), and got uppity about
it. You were also given advice that cross-posting isn't a brilliant thing
to do (which it isn't, for a multitude of reasons, no matter how relevant
someone might think it is to the groups included), and you got really
snotty about that advice. Bearing in mind the shortness of the original
comment, your response has been wholly over-the-top.
When I post a question, I expect to see reasonable answers, which I got
from two or three people. Who told me that the answer was that the
attribute was defined in terms of CDATA, which has a different
definition.
The rest of the people, who post about top posting, spelling, cross
posting and other time wasting rants, can just get a life.
The one who needs to get a life, is you. This is usenet, something gets
said, other people make comments, that's how it works, live with it. The
rest of use know how usenet works, and play ball. Some make some effort to
ensure the others play ball too. There's always the odd few loudmouth who
pisses off everyone by refusing to play along, and making a huge fuss about
why they shouldn't do so.
You may choose to justify your position,
The one attempting to do the "justifying " is you.
the fact of this matter is that I have been reading newsgroups for many
years
Then you ought to know better.
But you can guarantee some idiot will always come along and start
nitpicking and wasting time over something like that.
You can always guarantee that some twit who behaves in an annoying manner
will defend their right to be an annoying twit to the death, and making a
right fool of themselves in the process. Today, that twit is you.
--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.
This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Patrick Dunford wrote: Except that YOU haven't contributed anything worthwhile to this thread so
far. You didn't answer my question about PHP, which is what this thread
is about.
In order to qualify for this group (comp.infosyste ms.www.authoring.html)
the thread needs to be about authoring HTML for the WWW.
The fact is, in some newsgroups there are idiots who waste my time and my
bandwidth flaming other people solely on these reasons.
Welcome to usenet. and to the killfile.
Tim On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:53:54 +1200, Patrick Dunford
<pa************ @nz.invalid> posted:
There have been in this thread about two useful replies that stuck to the
subject.
There have been about a dozen time wasting replies.
Mostly written by someone attempting to justify their behaviour, with a
rather large amount of effort put in by that one arrogant sod to justify
their position that they'll do as they damn well please, and hang how
annoying it might be to the usenet community.
You posted a message, it's no-longer yours. You got answers, you got a
question (why did you have a colon in that place?), and got uppity about
it. You were also given advice that cross-posting isn't a brilliant thing
to do (which it isn't, for a multitude of reasons, no matter how relevant
someone might think it is to the groups included), and you got really
snotty about that advice. Bearing in mind the shortness of the original
comment, your response has been wholly over-the-top.
When I post a question, I expect to see reasonable answers, which I got
from two or three people. Who told me that the answer was that the
attribute was defined in terms of CDATA, which has a different
definition.
The rest of the people, who post about top posting, spelling, cross
posting and other time wasting rants, can just get a life.
The one who needs to get a life, is you. This is usenet, something gets
said, other people make comments, that's how it works, live with it. The
rest of use know how usenet works, and play ball. Some make some effort to
ensure the others play ball too. There's always the odd few loudmouth who
pisses off everyone by refusing to play along, and making a huge fuss about
why they shouldn't do so.
You may choose to justify your position,
The one attempting to do the "justifying " is you.
the fact of this matter is that I have been reading newsgroups for many
years
Then you ought to know better.
But you can guarantee some idiot will always come along and start
nitpicking and wasting time over something like that.
You can always guarantee that some twit who behaves in an annoying manner
will defend their right to be an annoying twit to the death, and making a
right fool of themselves in the process. Today, that twit is you.
You have contributed nothing useful whatsoever to this thread.
I have not broken any netiquette. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: dam_fool_2003 |
last post by:
Friends,
cannot we malloc a array?
So, I tried the following code:
int main(void)
{
unsigned int y={1,3,6},i,j;
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
printf("before =%d\n",y);
*y = 7; /* 1*/
|
by: James Mcguire |
last post by:
Hi,
I frequently do non-initialisation type structure assignment via casting:
e.g.
struct s{int i,j,k;} mys;
....
mys=(struct s){3,4,5};
|
by: John Lau |
last post by:
Hi,
Is there documentation that talks about the page lifecycle, the lifecycle of
controls on the page, and the rendering of inline code, in a single
document?
Thanks,
John
|
by: bienwell |
last post by:
Hi all,
Data displayed on the datalist control is bound by the column name of the
dataset like this :
<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container.DataItem, "title")%>
Could I use an element of the array (i.e. index=0) which has the name
"title" in place of it ? For example:
|
by: kk_oop |
last post by:
Hi. I recently wrote a simple little template that defines an array
that checks attempts to use out of bounds indexes. The only problem is
that it does provide the use array style value initialization when the
type is instantiated. Any suggestions for a mod that would allow array
initialization syntax?
***********Here's the type:
#ifndef CHECKED_ARRAY_
#define CHECKED_ARRAY_
| | |
by: VK |
last post by:
(see the post by ASM in the original thread; can be seen at
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/3716384d8bfa1b0b>
as an option)
As that is not in relevance to "new Array() vs " question or to the
array performance, I dared to move it to a new thread.
Gecko takes undefined value strictly as per Book 4, Chapter 3, Song 9
of Books of ECMA
:-)
|
by: JJA |
last post by:
I'm looking at some code I do not understand:
var icons = new Array();
icons = new GIcon();
icons.image = "somefilename.png";
I read this as an array of icons is being built.
An element of the array is an object itself but what is this syntax of
the consecutive double quotes inside the brackets ?
|
by: Peter Olcott |
last post by:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/a9092f0f6c9bf13a
I think that the operator() member function does not work correctly, does
anyone else know how to make a template for making two dimensional arrays from
std::vectors ??? I want to use normal Array Syntax.
|
by: mdh |
last post by:
>From p112 ( K&R).
Given an array declared as
static char arr= { { 0,1,........},{0,1,.....}};
let arr be passed as an argument to f.
f( int (*arr) ) {....}
It is noted that the parentheses are necessary else it would be
|
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 effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
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, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
| | |
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 tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
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 we have to send another system
|
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 can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
