Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #20445 > unrolled thread

How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements bugbuster <barryk_56@comcast.net> - 2013-06-25 19:22 -0400
    Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-26 02:34 +0200
      Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-26 02:39 +0200
      Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-26 16:10 +0100
        Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-06-26 21:21 +0000
          Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-06-27 08:12 +1000
            Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-06-26 23:21 +0100
              Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-06-27 11:58 +1000
          Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-06-27 00:14 +0200
            Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-06-27 00:45 +0200
              “javascript”? (was: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-27 13:36 +0200
                Re: “javascript”? Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-07-29 01:21 +0200
                  Re: “javascript”? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-07-30 08:51 +0200
              Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-06-27 14:52 +0200
            Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-06-27 14:04 +0300
              Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-06-27 14:45 +0200
                Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-27 15:11 +0200
          Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-06-27 00:45 +0200
            “javascript”? (was: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-27 14:21 +0200
            Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-27 14:31 +0100
              Parlance (was: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-06-27 16:21 +0200
                Re: Parlance Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-27 20:46 +0200
                  Re: Parlance John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-28 14:33 +0100
                    Re: Parlance Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-28 15:54 +0200
                      Re: Parlance "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-06-28 17:08 +0300
                        Re: Parlance Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-28 17:05 +0200
                          Re: Parlance "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-06-28 18:16 +0300
                            Re: Parlance Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-28 17:56 +0200
                              Re: Parlance Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-06-28 17:54 +0100
                                Re: Parlance Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-28 20:50 +0200
                                Re: Parlance Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2013-06-29 07:18 +1000
                      Re: Parlance John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-29 17:17 +0100
                Re: Parlance (was: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-28 14:53 +0100
                  Re: Parlance Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-07-15 00:42 +0200
                    Re: Parlance John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-07-15 16:01 +0100
    Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-06-26 08:55 +0300
    Re: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-06-27 21:27 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#20472 — Parlance (was: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements)

John Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:45:01 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>> In fact, the abbreviation is confusing -- at least for beginners.  When
>> I was new to the topic (what's not too long ago), I was not aware that
>> the language and the browser API are not directly related.  Looking up
>> normative information on the internet was nearly impossible to
>> accomplish for me in these days.  Fortunately "he" (and Mark David) made
>> me aware of this "detail".  Otherwise I might still wander around in the
>> dark...
> 
> When you were in your state of not knowing, which would have helped
> you more :
> 
>   Beware : "javascript" is a general name for a multitude of
>   variants and implementations.
> 
> or
> 
>   There is no javascript.
> 
> The first is my preferred style of teaching. The second is Thomas's
> parody of a music hall Herr Professor.

Well, I have to admit that the latter alone is quite confusing.
However, Thomas' often points to the "ECMAScript Support Matrix" and its
foreword explains the issue.

> As for confusion, both "property" and "prototype" are far more
> confusing than "javascript". Even after so many years there are still
> people saying ECMAScript is a prototypal language (which is something
> different).

Good point!  One may argue that everybody knows what is meant by saying
"ECMAScript is a prototypal language" as well as what is meant by
talking about "javascript".  However, there might be misunderstandings
which can be avoided by using unambigious wording (such as "ECMAScript
uses prototypal inheritance" resp. "ECMAScript implementations")--what
seems to be particularly important if the audience is unknown, as, for
instance, in a Usenet newsgroup.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20474 — Re: Parlance

Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

> John Harris wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:45:01 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> In fact, the abbreviation is confusing -- at least for beginners.  When
>>> I was new to the topic (what's not too long ago), I was not aware that
>>> the language and the browser API are not directly related.  Looking up
>>> normative information on the internet was nearly impossible to
>>> accomplish for me in these days.  Fortunately "he" (and Mark David) made
>>> me aware of this "detail".  Otherwise I might still wander around in the
>>> dark...
>> 
>> When you were in your state of not knowing, which would have helped
>> you more :
>> 
>>   Beware : "javascript" is a general name for a multitude of
>>   variants and implementations.
>> 
>> or
>> 
>>   There is no javascript.
>> 
>> The first is my preferred style of teaching. The second is Thomas's
>> parody of a music hall Herr Professor.
> 
> Well, I have to admit that the latter alone is quite confusing.
> However, Thomas' often points to the "ECMAScript Support Matrix" and its
> foreword explains the issue.

And the former one is simply wishful thinking by the inventor(s) of this 
misnomer.  I can understand, even appreciate, that many people want things 
to be (as) simple (as that), but some things are not (that) simple.  One 
must not fall into the trap of oversimplification – it leads to ignorance.

I probably have said this before: One should not call JScript etc. 
“javascript” for the same reason that one should not call a cat a “dog” 
(both are implementations of “domesticated animal equipped with a tail”).

Who prefers to call different things by the same name is not thinking 
clearly.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20478 — Re: Parlance

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:46:45 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

  <snip>
>I probably have said this before: One should not call JScript etc. 
>“javascript” for the same reason that one should not call a cat a “dog” 
>(both are implementations of “domesticated animal equipped with a tail”).

animal <=> javascript
cat    <=> JavaScript
dog    <=> JScript


>Who prefers to call different things by the same name is not thinking 
>clearly.

Who refuses to discuss a group name for similar things is in
write-only mode.

  John

PS Manx cats don't have tails.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20480 — Re: Parlance

John Harris wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>   <snip>
>> I probably have said this before: One should not call JScript etc.
>> “javascript” for the same reason that one should not call a cat a “dog”
>> (both are implementations of “domesticated animal equipped with a tail”).
> 
> animal <=> javascript
> cat    <=> JavaScript
> dog    <=> JScript

I rest my case.

JavaScript and JScript are _not_ implementations of an *imagined* 
programming language called “javascript”, but of a *specified* programming 
language called “ECMAScript”.  You can *look it up there* how they should 
work, and it most cases it does.

As perhaps a special case, conforming implementations of ECMAScript are 
allowed to extend the ECMAScript specification, providing features like 
Array destructuring (JavaScript) and Conditional Compilation (JScript).

>>Who prefers to call different things by the same name is not thinking
>>clearly.
> 
> Who refuses to discuss a group name for similar things is in
> write-only mode.

The *proper* “group name” (you were probably looking for “umbrella term”) is 
“implementations of ECMAScript”, or “ECMAScript implementations” for short.  
As simple as that.

And as for the newsgroup name, it has but historical reasons, the same as 
the newsgroup tagline and charter.  So arguing that you should use a 
misnomer because of the newsgroup name is only yet another fallacy.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20481 — Re: Parlance

2013-06-28 16:54, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> JavaScript and JScript are_not_  implementations of an*imagined*
> programming language called “javascript”, but of a*specified*  programming
> language called “ECMAScript”.

The resident troll never gets tired of his favorite trolling topic, 
which is good, because it makes the nature of his postings so clear.

Of course, as anyone can easily check, JavaScript predates ECMAScript, 
and JavaScript is a single language with a few variants, and a standard 
that uses the awkward name “ECMAScript”, just like Java, Cobol, C, C++, 
Fortran, and many others are programming languages that exist in 
different variants and some standards.

It is foolish that the JavaScript standard calls the language 
“ECMAScript”, but it is even more foolish to keep repeating a 
requirement that the foolish name, and only it, be used for the 
language. Such foolishness is, however, useful because it gives 
perspective to the person’s postings in general, including those that 
look superficially on-topic and constructive.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20482 — Re: Parlance

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> […]
> It is foolish that the JavaScript standard calls the language
> “ECMAScript”, […]

Sorry to break this to you, but the ECMAScript Language Specification is 
_not_ “the JavaScript standard”.  It says in *all* of its Editions, like in

,-<http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/>
| 
| […]
| Introduction
| 
| This Ecma Standard is based on several originating technologies, the most
| well known being JavaScript (Netscape) and JScript (Microsoft). […]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20483 — Re: Parlance

2013-06-28 18:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Sorry to break this to you, but the ECMAScript Language Specification is
> _not_ “the JavaScript standard”.

You are saying that the standard, which avoids calling the language 
“JavaScript”, for foolish reasons related to lawyers’ fancy ideas of 
trademarks and all, avoids calling the language “JavaScript”. Everyone 
else calls it “JavaScript” (in some casing), except when forced to write 
formalese or when pointlessly trolling.

Please keep posting such pointless remarks as long as you keep trolling 
and nitpicking without even being right in the irrelevant topics that 
you raise.

I think you declared long ago that you killfiled me, but we all know the 
value of such statements.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20484 — Re: Parlance

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> 2013-06-28 18:05, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Sorry to break this to you, but the ECMAScript Language Specification is
>> _not_ “the JavaScript standard”.
> 
> You are saying that the standard, which avoids calling the language
> “JavaScript”,

The Specification does _not_ *avoid* calling “the language” JavaScript.
It says explicitly that the language to be specified there is *also* *based 
on* JavaScript, and it is specifying a language that obviously is 
considerably different from Netscape/Mozilla JavaScript (particularly the 
early versions of it).

You would have known that if you had read more carefully, and if you visited 
the ECMAScript Support Matrix at least once (particularly the new version 
with its SVG Timeline.  The latter was recently inspected and, I am 
satisfied to say, needed only a slight correction, by none other than 
Brendan Eich, creator of JavaScript).

> for foolish reasons

IYVHO.

> related to lawyers’ fancy ideas of trademarks and all,

No, as confirmed by several sources, including Brendan Eich, the parties 
involved could not agree on a name, *therefore* the standard was called 
“ECMAScript”.  After all, it was an Ecma International Technical Committee 
(TC-39), consisting of people from several organizations, that wrote it and 
is still writing it.

> avoids calling the language “JavaScript”.

Again, the Specification is _not_ *avoiding* to call anything anything else; 
it is just specifying something else than you, being blissfully ignorant, 
think it does.

> Everyone else calls it “JavaScript” (in some casing),

Everyone else is wrong, mislead by people like you who do not have the 
slightest clue what they are talking about.  Do you know “Russell's teapot”?

> I think you declared long ago that you killfiled me, […]

I did, and I still have, killfiled you.

> but we all know the value of such statements.

That I am still correcting you when necessary must bother you very much, 
does it not?

JFYI: My filters are intentionally selective, can be temporary, and can be 
disabled.  One should never give up talking sense into some people, even if 
the attempt is expected to be futile, and again it was (or was it not?  
We'll probably never know).  At least there is a chance that *someone* will 
learn from it.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20485 — Re: Parlance

In article <9345493.XjGnlNj9mZ@PointedEars.de>,
 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> > Everyone else calls it “JavaScript” (in some casing),
> 
> Everyone else is wrong, mislead by people like you who do not have the 
> slightest clue what they are talking about.  Do you know “Russell's teapot”?

Ha ha ha, priceless - or it would be if it wasn't so predictable. 
"Everyone else is wrong" - love it, well done PointyHead, you've 
surpassed yourself.

> JFYI: My filters are intentionally selective, can be temporary, and can be 
> disabled.  One should never give up talking sense into some people, even if 
> the attempt is expected to be futile, and again it was (or was it not?  
> We'll probably never know).  At least there is a chance that *someone* will 
> learn from it.

What will be learnt by discriminating people is that you are an inane 
pedant.

-- 
Tim

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20486 — Re: Parlance

Tim Streater wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> > Everyone else calls it “JavaScript” (in some casing),
>> 
>> Everyone else is wrong, mislead by people like you who do not have the
>> slightest clue what they are talking about.  Do you know “Russell's
>> teapot”?
> 
> Ha ha ha, priceless - or it would be if it wasn't so predictable.
> "Everyone else is wrong" - love it, well done PointyHead, you've
> surpassed yourself.

Simple minds are easily amused.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20487 — Re: Parlance

On 29/06/2013 2:54 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <9345493.XjGnlNj9mZ@PointedEars.de>,
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> > Everyone else calls it “JavaScript” (in some casing),
>>
>> Everyone else is wrong, mislead by people like you who do not have the
>> slightest clue what they are talking about.  Do you know “Russell's
>> teapot”?
>
> Ha ha ha, priceless - or it would be if it wasn't so predictable.
> "Everyone else is wrong" - love it, well done PointyHead, you've
> surpassed yourself.
>
>> JFYI: My filters are intentionally selective, can be temporary, and
>> can be disabled.  One should never give up talking sense into some
>> people, even if the attempt is expected to be futile, and again it was
>> (or was it not? We'll probably never know).  At least there is a
>> chance that *someone* will learn from it.
>
> What will be learnt by discriminating people is that you are an inane
> pedant.

You want to "win" but you apparently can't so instead you throw insults.

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20493 — Re: Parlance

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:54:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>   <snip>
>>> I probably have said this before: One should not call JScript etc.
>>> ?javascript? for the same reason that one should not call a cat a ?dog?
>>> (both are implementations of ?domesticated animal equipped with a tail?).
>> 
>> animal <=> javascript
>> cat    <=> JavaScript
>> dog    <=> JScript
>
>I rest my case.

Non sequitor.


>JavaScript and JScript are _not_ implementations of an *imagined* 
>programming language called “javascript”, but of a *specified* programming 
>language called “ECMAScript”.  You can *look it up there* how they should 
>work, and it most cases it does.

And cat and dog are not implementations of animal. They are classified
as animals, as distinct from plants and fungi.


>As perhaps a special case, conforming implementations of ECMAScript are 
>allowed to extend the ECMAScript specification, providing features like 
>Array destructuring (JavaScript) and Conditional Compilation (JScript).
>
>>>Who prefers to call different things by the same name is not thinking
>>>clearly.
>> 
>> Who refuses to discuss a group name for similar things is in
>> write-only mode.
>
>The *proper* “group name” (you were probably looking for “umbrella term”) 

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, "group" is perfectly
proper usage.

However, as we are discussing classification the most appropriate word
is obviously "class" (as in the ruling class and an equivalence
class). I didn't use it because I suspect you think "class" is just a
keyword in other programming languages.

"Umbrella term" is a phrase used by journalists and politicians.


>is 
>“implementations of ECMAScript”, or “ECMAScript implementations” for short.  
>As simple as that.

But "javascript" is even simpler and requires no greater explanation
to all the beginners who've never heard of ECMAScript.


>And as for the newsgroup name, it has but historical reasons, the same as 
>the newsgroup tagline and charter.  So arguing that you should use a 
>misnomer because of the newsgroup name is only yet another fallacy.

No-one has argued that it *should* be used for that reason, merely
that its use would be compatible.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20479 — Re: Parlance (was: How can javascript detect a fieldset in an array of elements)

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:21:13 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:

  <snip>
>However, there might be misunderstandings
>which can be avoided by using unambigious wording (such as "ECMAScript
>uses prototypal inheritance" 
...

An ECMAScript prototype chain does the same job as the vtables used in
many C++ implementations : it is a data structure that holds pointers
to objects' methods, including inherited methods. 

"Prototype" was not the best choice of name for these objects. And
"prototypal inheritance" was also not the best choice.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20651 — Re: Parlance

John Harris wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:21:13 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
>> However, there might be misunderstandings
>> which can be avoided by using unambigious wording (such as "ECMAScript
>> uses prototypal inheritance" 
> ...
> 
> An ECMAScript prototype chain does the same job as the vtables used in
> many C++ implementations : it is a data structure that holds pointers
> to objects' methods, including inherited methods.

Well, indeed the concepts are similar, but ECMAScript has no
restrictions on the type of the properties in the prototype chain.  So
not only "methods" may be referenced there.  It seems important to me to
stress this difference, as apparently it is not seldom (mis-)used
(possibly unintentional).

> "Prototype" was not the best choice of name for these objects. And
> "prototypal inheritance" was also not the best choice.

ECMA-262, Edition 5.1 chooses the wording "prototype-based inheritance"
(section 4.2.1).  It is probably pointless to use another term--perhaps
except in an environment where *every* participant is aware of the exact
meaning of this term.

However, which term would you suggest instead of "prototype"?

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20663 — Re: Parlance

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:42:59 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:

>John Harris wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:21:13 +0200, Christoph Michael Becker
>> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
>> 
>>   <snip>
>>> However, there might be misunderstandings
>>> which can be avoided by using unambigious wording (such as "ECMAScript
>>> uses prototypal inheritance" 
>> ...
>> 
>> An ECMAScript prototype chain does the same job as the vtables used in
>> many C++ implementations : it is a data structure that holds pointers
>> to objects' methods, including inherited methods.
>
>Well, indeed the concepts are similar, but ECMAScript has no
>restrictions on the type of the properties in the prototype chain.  So
>not only "methods" may be referenced there.  It seems important to me to
>stress this difference, as apparently it is not seldom (mis-)used
>(possibly unintentional).

However, if you do  a.b = x;  then any b in the prototype chain
becomes invisible. Methods are seldom hidden in this way, but any data
is just a default or initial value, or, more popularly, hidden
immediately by the constructor (as in Crockford). 


>> "Prototype" was not the best choice of name for these objects. And
>> "prototypal inheritance" was also not the best choice.
>
>ECMA-262, Edition 5.1 chooses the wording "prototype-based inheritance"
>(section 4.2.1).  It is probably pointless to use another term--perhaps
>except in an environment where *every* participant is aware of the exact
>meaning of this term.
>
>However, which term would you suggest instead of "prototype"?

I wouldn't. It's far, far, too late.

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20449

2013-06-26 2:22, bugbuster wrote:

> I have a javascipt function which I use to erase all the field in a
> <FORM>. On those forms where yhere is a <fieldset> tag the script
> encounters a problem.
[...]
> When i use this function on a FORM that has a fieldset then the line
>
> field_type = elements[i].type.toLowerCase();
>
>
> errors out.

You should test for elements[i].tagName first, before trying to access 
the type property.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20477

In comp.lang.javascript message <379ks8thdutnrglv34mc63mr95kgbglopo@4ax.
com>, Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:22:22, bugbuster <barryk_56@comcast.net>
posted:

>I have a javascipt function which I use to erase all the field in a
><FORM>. On those forms where yhere is a <fieldset> tag the script
>encounters a problem.
>
>my laptop is a win 7 laptop and I use the IE browser.

The general assumption in this newsgroup, as IIRC is given in the FAQ,
is that, unless a poster states otherwise, the JavaScript is being
written to be part of a public page on the World Wide Web.

Then it does not really matter what computer and browser YOU use,
because you should be writing for any combination of Internet computer
(ideally, any Internet device) and browser, and you should be testing
with more than one browser.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK.   E-mail, see Home Page.    Turnpike v6.05.
 Website  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
 PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
 Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web