Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!feeder.erje.net!news.internetdienste.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <9716086.hkaJUJhadI@PointedEars.de>
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <cljs@PointedEars.de>
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:26:09 +0100
User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Subject: Re: multi browser forms issue
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
References: <a9622d31-d06a-4886-8a6d-b90e8a1781ef@o19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> <6b248eda-8b2d-4618-af26-d3983cdcdbb1@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <m2y5vsnl21.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl> <858f3485-5cf5-41f1-b4be-e8619d3ac867@k38g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <m2mxc7mvs3.fsf@nntp.bednarz.nl>
Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Nov 2011 23:26:11 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2b58250d.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: DXC=kZ`dXUbYSho9kIfcjg:0fd4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk0bK78=TXjmnDZm8W4\YJNl;?f@h5gMfblQd;B>\46n?e[73`RRa[0_e
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.javascript:8114

Eric Bednarz wrote:

> David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> writes:
>> Eric Bednarz wrote:
>>>>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
>>>>
>>>> That's not right for HTML5.
>>>
>>> There seem to be quite some things eluding you, too…
>>
>> Wrong. Once again, I am pointing out how silly it is to transplant an
>> HTML5 doctype onto a document that is clearly not HTML5.
> 
> By making bullshit statements? Oh well. I guess you win :-)

There are two ways to approach this problem.  One, to assume HTML5 was 
intended and some things in the document need to be fixed to make that Valid 
HTML5.  Two, to assume HTML5 was not intended and some sort of "cargo cult" 
that you have been talking about earlier made the author believe that this 
was the way to do things.

Given the fact that in this document the `script' element resides between 
`head' and `body' element, and that it contains attempts, with
javascript:-URI driven scripting in place of a submit button, to submit a 
form by ID that has only a name specified, what do you think is the more 
reasonable approach here?


PointedEars
-- 
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee