thanks for clearing that up for me. I'll be using and converting to:
Not to sure about this return true or false business though. As some functions of mine don't need to return a value, as they invoke other functions.
edit: Also I was just using onClick() event as an example, as in I mean it for all events, onBlur(), onMouseOver(), onMouseDown(), etc. I think that for some of these events, should require a return true; or something.
Not in HTML, but as braces cause problems with XML parsers you are encouraged to use only external scripts in XHTML.
Please stop just making things up. Its a pseudo-protocol identifier because it's aping the protocol part of a URL and it applies to a construction such as:
See Section 18.2.2, Specifying the scripting language, of the HTML 4.01 Specification ( http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/....html#h-18.2.2 ) for the valid ways of specifying your scripting language. That's the actual HTML rules and not something that somebody just made up.
I said I've used it in all IE and NS browsers and versions (on a Windows platform). That's all... ...and that's all most of the people will care about
Perhaps, but you need to make it clear to them that your special little construction is not only unnecessary but it might cause harm on those other browsers. Which is what was meant when I wrote that it was always wrong. But you took offence at that. And I suspect that there are more people out there than you think who do care that their pages work on all browsers. I'm quite sure that you don't vare very much for those using Braille and audio browsers but other do - and some of them out of a well founded fear of legal action.
a little off track - but i find this "all browsers" issue to be very interesting.
i have a site that uses some features and positioning that i am not willing to compromise. and i am also willing to accept that 90% coverage is ok for this site.
so i think the key here is not right or wrong. but understanding what works where, so we can all make choices.
The problem is that that approach is often against the law in the United States. (See http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt for the offical US Department of Justice position on the matter.) And it's a good thing too, for without that push most wee authors wouldn't even consider making sure their pages are accessible to persons with diasabilities who might be using assistive technologies.
The trick isn't to eschew the use of positioning and client side scripting but to employ it in a way that the page 'fails safe' when the positioning or scripting isn't there.
Originally posted by Dave Clark
[B][list][*]You didn't read all the details. My situation required using two scripting languages in the same document. Nobody addressed this issue -- they weren't going to touch what they knew nothing about. Instead, they were satisfied to baselessly criticize.
You can put as many <script type=""> in your HTML page as you like, and each one can be any scripting language you specify.
As I already stated, Charles even posted examplecode in this very thread.
[*]Nobody proved what I am doing is not valid. The fact that it fixed an error in the browser proves that it is a valid method -- some people just can't accept that.
You mean like <blink> creating blinking text in NS4 proves that is valid markup? You are not serious are you?
As for the proof that it's invalid, check the link to the HTML spec provided by Charles.
It specifies exactly what you are alowed to do. Anything else that is not in the spec is NOT alowed. That's the entire point with having a spec to begin with...