Re: Pull Down Search

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2000


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 28809
interpreted = N
texte = >On 3/9/00 1:21 pm, Bob Minor so noted... > >>I would make every every to retain the tag. Under some conditions >>and with some browsers, this is critical to proper functionality. I would >>appreciate seeing a condition in which the use of a proper tag >>adversely affected your application. > >I would be interested in the conditions and browsers where this would be >an issue. In five years of leaving off the (and also the >value= parameter, when redundant), I've never seen it affect the data >that's passed (which isn't surprising, considering that a closing tag for > tag is unnecessary, just like the ending

and
tags are unnecessary. And I also agree that the only time this may ever become an issue is if the new XML standard is implemented in a very *strict* manner by the major web browser makers.However, I do NOT see the is happening. After all, which browser manufacturer would dare to be the first to offer a new browser that breaks nearly every website out there?:)================================ Kenneth Grome, WebDNA Consultant 808-737-6499 http://webdna.net ================================------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Pull Down Search (Bob Minor 2000)
  2. Re: Pull Down Search (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  3. Re: Pull Down Search (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  4. Re: Pull Down Search (Bob Minor 2000)
  5. Re: Pull Down Search (John Butler 2000)
  6. Re: Pull Down Search (Rob Marquardt 2000)
  7. Re: Pull Down Search (Clint Davis 2000)
  8. Re: Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  9. Re: Pull Down Search (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  10. Re: Pull Down Search (Isaac Vega 2000)
  11. Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  12. Re: Pull Down Search (Mike Davis 2000)
  13. Re[2]: Pull Down Search (jpeacock@univpress.com 2000)
  14. Re: Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  15. Re: Pull Down Search (Clint Davis 2000)
  16. Re: Pull Down Search (Bob Minor 2000)
  17. Re: Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  18. Re: Pull Down Search (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  19. Re: Pull Down Search (WebDNA Support 2000)
  20. Re: Pull Down Search (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  21. Re: Pull Down Search (The Mooseman 2000)
  22. Re: Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  23. Re: Pull Down Search (The Mooseman 2000)
  24. Re: Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  25. Re: Pull Down Search (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  26. Re: Pull Down Search (Mike Davis 2000)
  27. Re: Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  28. Re: Pull Down Search (Clint Davis 2000)
  29. Re: Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  30. Re: Pull Down Search (John Butler 2000)
  31. Re: Pull Down Search (Michael O Shea 2000)
  32. Re: Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  33. Re: Pull Down Search (John Butler 2000)
  34. Re: Pull Down Search (John Butler 2000)
  35. Re: Pull Down Search (Clint Davis 2000)
  36. Re: Pull Down Search (Jeff Logan 2000)
  37. Re: Pull Down Search (Michael O Shea 2000)
  38. Re: Pull Down Search (The Mooseman 2000)
  39. Re: Pull Down Search (John Butler 2000)
  40. Re: Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
  41. Pull Down Search (Eric palhof 2000)
>On 3/9/00 1:21 pm, Bob Minor so noted... > >>I would make every every to retain the tag. Under some conditions >>and with some browsers, this is critical to proper functionality. I would >>appreciate seeing a condition in which the use of a proper tag >>adversely affected your application. > >I would be interested in the conditions and browsers where this would be >an issue. In five years of leaving off the (and also the >value= parameter, when redundant), I've never seen it affect the data >that's passed (which isn't surprising, considering that a closing tag for > tag is unnecessary, just like the ending

and
tags are unnecessary. And I also agree that the only time this may ever become an issue is if the new XML standard is implemented in a very *strict* manner by the major web browser makers.However, I do NOT see the is happening. After all, which browser manufacturer would dare to be the first to offer a new browser that breaks nearly every website out there?:)================================ Kenneth Grome, WebDNA Consultant 808-737-6499 http://webdna.net ================================------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Kenneth Grome

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Dynamic Pop up menu? (1997) New public beta available (1997) bug in [SendMail] (1997) disappearing SKU (etc.) fields (1998) Thanks ! (1997) RAM problems, [appendfile] problems (1998) access denied problem (1997) WebCat templates for TyphoonPro admin (1999) Progress !! WAS: Trouble with formula.db (1997) Extended [ConvertChars] (1997) show all problem (1997) Re[2]: php vs WebCatalog (2000) Online Docs for the Beta... (2000) Web Catalog Work/Position (2000) Online Docs for the Beta... (2000) SERIAL NUMBER BEING LOST AGAIN!!! (1999) The future of WebCatalog is coming with 4.0... (2000) [Fwd: Rotating Banners ... (was LinkExchange)] (1997) OT:looking for developers or you wanna swap some code? (2000) Error with [applescript] (1999)