Super basic newbie question

Le 09/03/12 22:39, Dr J R Stockton a écrit :
>>> Le 08/03/12 15:51, Larry.Mart...@gmail.com a écrit :
>
>>>> <input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
>
>> Yes, that was the problem. Thanks. That's what I get for coding at
>> 4am.
>
> My rule, easy for me to remember, is that quotes are unnecessary around
> attributes which contain only alpha-numeric characters;



doesn't it depend of the doctype ?






--
Stéphane Moriaux avec/with iMac-intel

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38 +0100, SAM
<stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote:

>doesn't it depend of the doctype ?

No, the quotes around attribute values have always been optional when
the value contains no spaces. There may be other conditions when the
quotes are required, but I have no experience of such conditions.

Since I started remote access when the fastest communication was the
220 baud modem, I never send 100 characters when I can get away with
sending 98, so I omit all of the optional stuff, and I've only
recently adopted the use of doctype.

I'll admit that I'd anticipate possible problems if the values
contained anything other than alphanumeric characters.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

In article <6h6nl7p2ekpjoq90fotvrq909ifj0752lj@4ax.com>,
Swifty <steve.j.swift@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since I started remote access when the fastest communication was the
> 220 baud modem, I never send 100 characters when I can get away with
> sending 98, so I omit all of the optional stuff, and I've only
> recently adopted the use of doctype.

Not using the doctype is definitely a case of cutting off your nose to
spite your face.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Le 10/03/12 19:19, Swifty a écrit :
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38 +0100, SAM
> <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>> doesn't it depend of the doctype ?
>
> No, the quotes around attribute values have always been optional

I didn't hear that about XHTML ...
(where not only they aren't optional but orphan attributes as checked or
selected can't be used alone)



--
Stéphane Moriaux avec/with iMac-intel

In article <4f5bddef$0$12486$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr >,
SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote:

> Le 10/03/12 19:19, Swifty a écrit :
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38 +0100, SAM
> > <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> doesn't it depend of the doctype ?
> >
> > No, the quotes around attribute values have always been optional
>
> I didn't hear that about XHTML ...
> (where not only they aren't optional but orphan attributes as checked or
> selected can't be used alone)

I would forget all about XHTML. Pretend it never existed.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

In comp.lang.javascript message <4f5b170a$0$12497$ba4acef3@reader.news.o
range.fr>, Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38, SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanad
oo.fr.invalid> posted:

>Le 09/03/12 22:39, Dr J R Stockton a écrit :
>>>> Le 08/03/12 15:51, Larry.Mart...@gmail.com a écrit :
>>
>>>>> <input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
>>
>>> Yes, that was the problem. Thanks. That's what I get for coding at
>>> 4am.
>>
>> My rule, easy for me to remember, is that quotes are unnecessary around
>> attributes which contain only alpha-numeric characters;
>
>
>
>doesn't it depend of the doctype ?

AFAIK, no; but I don't need to know. That rule indicates circumstances
in which quotes are unnecessary. In circumstances not matching the
rule, they are sometimes needed, and sometimes not; but I don't need to
know which need it if I use it for all other cases. I always use quotes
in "on..." attributes - AIUI they are always required but not always
necessary (as I found when testing/validating a page in which I had
omitted one set of such quotes without preventing correct action).

By the way, for those who had not known, Opera has "Validate" on the
context menu, and uses W3 for that. An entry there for TIDY would be
nice, since that's quicker and less verbose.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.
<http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm> clpdmFAQ;
NOT <http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/>: news:borland.* Guidelines

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:59:07 +0000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>Not using the doctype is definitely a case of cutting off your nose to
>spite your face

I'm not actively not using doctype. I predate doctype by many years,
so most of my pages started without one, and I've found no need to add
one.

Most of my HTML is so simple that the doctype makes little, or no
difference.

At the end of each year, I have to justify what I've been doing to my
manager. He's unlikely to get excited by "I changed a few thousand
webpages to be syntactically correct; you cannot see any difference".

However, "I wrote a process which should bring in an extra £1million
per year, but cut some corners along the way" would have him beaming
(on both counts).

Incidentally, these are real life examples.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

In article <6lhrl7psq2hvtjd88sf2d8vin63un9pcps@4ax.com>,
Swifty <steve.j.swift@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:59:07 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
> >Not using the doctype is definitely a case of cutting off your nose to
> >spite your face
>
> I'm not actively not using doctype. I predate doctype by many years,
> so most of my pages started without one, and I've found no need to add
> one.
>
> Most of my HTML is so simple that the doctype makes little, or no
> difference.
>
> At the end of each year, I have to justify what I've been doing to my
> manager. He's unlikely to get excited by "I changed a few thousand
> webpages to be syntactically correct; you cannot see any difference".
>
> However, "I wrote a process which should bring in an extra £1million
> per year, but cut some corners along the way" would have him beaming
> (on both counts).
>
> Incidentally, these are real life examples.

Doubtless. But I would suggest that you put:

<!DOCTYPE html>

in all your new pages.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:02:47 +0000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>I would suggest that you put:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html>
>
>in all your new pages

I do, or more accurately, my process does. 99% of my pages are created
by CGI scripts, so fixing those was simple; add the <!DOCTYPE> tag to
the subroutine that builds the HTTP header.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 at 09:58:25, in comp.lang.javascript, Swifty wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:59:07 +0000, Tim Streater
><timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>>Not using the doctype is definitely a case of cutting off your nose to
>>spite your face
>
>I'm not actively not using doctype. I predate doctype by many years,
>so most of my pages started without one, and I've found no need to add
>one.
<snip>

You must be very old. Even HTML 2 had doctype declarations. In HTML 3.2
they were mandatory.

John
--
John Harris

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 at 10:02:47, in comp.lang.javascript, Tim Streater
wrote:

<snip>
>Doubtless. But I would suggest that you put:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html>
>
>in all your new pages.

That's HTML 5. Did you mean it?

John
--
John Harris

On Mar 10, 7:04*pm, SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:
> Le 10/03/12 19:19, Swifty a écrit :
>
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38 +0100, SAM
> > <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> *wrote:
>
> >> doesn't it depend of the doctype ?
>
> > No, the quotes around attribute values have always been optional
>
> I didn't hear that about XHTML ...

Because it isn't true for (real) XHTML. But that language has been
dead on the Web since the turn of the century. The XHTML on the Web
today is just error-filled HTML.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:37:24 +0000, John G Harris
<john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>You must be very old.

I was in IT before TCP/IP was invented. I remember remarking that I
saw no future for it. I've made worse mistakes.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:37:24 +0000, John G Harris
<john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 at 09:58:25, in comp.lang.javascript, Swifty wrote:
>>On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:59:07 +0000, Tim Streater
>><timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Not using the doctype is definitely a case of cutting off your nose to
>>>spite your face
>>
>>I'm not actively not using doctype. I predate doctype by many years,
>>so most of my pages started without one, and I've found no need to add
>>one.
> <snip>
>
>You must be very old. Even HTML 2 had doctype declarations. In HTML 3.2
>they were mandatory.

He could as young as about 20.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Swifty said:

">
> I was in IT before TCP/IP was invented. I remember remarking that I
> saw no future for it. I've made worse mistakes.

Sify:

I made the biggest mistake of my life:

I was a member of a 2-man IT team (the other guy was Dan McCormack) that
was sent to Provo, Utah in the early '80s to investigate a small company
that needed $1 million 'seed' money to carry on with development of their
new networking technology.

In their small building, I witnessed a guy getting 'smashed' from a
bottle of booze in his desk drawer. In another we watched as a guy tried to
connect two 'micro computer' boards and show us how he could transmit
messages thru his basic new network technology. The boards were about ten
feet apart, and several wires were floating in the air above and near us
between the boards. The test failed and the guy got very flustered.

This was very unsettling; and then there was a final meeting that day
between us and one of their top executives. He was very nervous, and really
wanted us to recommend that his company get the $1 million seed money. This
would give our Canadian Company (Altel Data), a 25% stake in the new
company.

So, Dan & I reurned to Canada, and I wrote up a paper for our Canadian
managers that strongly recommended that we *not* invest in this scary U.S.
startup. So, my managers accepted my negative recommendation.

This company later turned out to be Novell !!

It later turned out that I left Altel Data (to go on my own), and Altel
Data itself was collapsed due to the emergence of microcomputers, and the
collapse of minicomputers (we had sold Vax and PDP minis before then).

-Mel Smith
(Loser-at-Large)