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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #21181 > unrolled thread

getElementById or forms['form'].elements....?

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

Contents

  getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-07 08:45 -0700
    Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Martin Honnen <mahotrash@yahoo.de> - 2013-09-07 18:07 +0200
      Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-07 10:36 -0700
    Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ken <usenet-so@abdiassoftware.com> - 2013-09-07 13:58 -0500
      Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-07 13:18 -0700
        Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-09-07 22:37 +0200
          Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-07 14:28 -0700
            Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-09-08 08:59 +0200
              Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-08 06:55 -0700
                Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-09-08 17:39 +0200
                Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2013-09-08 20:22 +0200
                Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2013-09-09 04:35 +0200
                  Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-08 22:05 -0700
                    Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2013-09-09 09:22 +0200
                      Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> - 2013-09-09 13:50 +0200
        Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-09-07 22:49 +0200
          Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-07 14:25 -0700
            Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-09-08 01:44 +0200
              Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-09-08 10:04 +0100
                Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-08 06:56 -0700
                  Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-09-08 19:25 +0200
                    Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-08 12:23 -0700
                Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-09-09 19:56 +0100
                  Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-09-10 10:26 +0100
        Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ken <usenet-so@abdiassoftware.com> - 2013-09-07 18:36 -0500
    Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-09-08 19:17 +0100
      Re: getElementById or forms['form'].elements....? Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> - 2013-09-08 16:03 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#21181 — getElementById or forms['form'].elements....?

I'm being told to us the identifier:
document.getElementById("foo_box").whatever;

instead of: 
document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;

Why?
-- 
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#21182

Ed Jay wrote:
> I'm being told to us the identifier:
> document.getElementById("foo_box").whatever;
>
> instead of:
> document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>
> Why?

At least show the HTML. Do you want to access an element that has an 
"id" attribute with the value "foo_box"? Or a form control that has a 
"name" attribute with that value?

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

#21183

Martin Honnen wrote:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>> I'm being told to us the identifier:
>> document.getElementById("foo_box").whatever;
>>
>> instead of:
>> document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>>
>> Why?
>
>At least show the HTML. Do you want to access an element that has an 
>"id" attribute with the value "foo_box"? Or a form control that has a 
>"name" attribute with that value?

Sorry. I'm addressing an element with an id = 'foo_box.'

-- 
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)

Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life. 
http://www.breastthermography.info

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

#21184

On 07.09.2013 10:45, Ed Jay wrote:
 > I'm being told to us the identifier:
 > document.getElementById("foo_box").whatever;
 >
 > instead of:
 > document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
 >
 > Why?

It's faster and cleaner (ie. /mostly/ personal preference).

By using the forms approach the browser need to first traverse the 
document tree, then traverse the forms branch, then elements branch. By 
using getElementById the browser will internally look-up in an id list 
(same as used for the window object) which is faster.

That being said: Unless you have a ton of elements you need to look-up 
you won't notice any perfomance gain by switching. But it's probably 
easier to come back and read the code later if you simnplify it (again, 
personal preference).

You can use:

   document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
   document.forms.form.foo_box.whatever;
   document.getElementById('form').foo_box.whatever;
   document.getElementById('foo_box').whatever;
   document.querySelector('#foo_box').whatever;  // the "new way"
   window.foo_box;

and even directly:

   foo_box.whatever;

Personally I use getElementById when an element has an id but I am 
switching more and more over to querySelector (which is a bit more 
powerful).


-- 
Ken Fyrstenberg
Abdias Software
http://abdiassoftware.com/
(remove usenet- from address)

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

#21185

Ken wrote:

>On 07.09.2013 10:45, Ed Jay wrote:
> > I'm being told to us the identifier:
> > document.getElementById("foo_box").whatever;
> >
> > instead of:
> > document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
> >
> > Why?
>
>It's faster and cleaner (ie. /mostly/ personal preference).
>
>By using the forms approach the browser need to first traverse the 
>document tree, then traverse the forms branch, then elements branch. By 
>using getElementById the browser will internally look-up in an id list 
>(same as used for the window object) which is faster.
>
>That being said: Unless you have a ton of elements you need to look-up 
>you won't notice any perfomance gain by switching. But it's probably 
>easier to come back and read the code later if you simnplify it (again, 
>personal preference).
>
>You can use:
>
>   document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>   document.forms.form.foo_box.whatever;
>   document.getElementById('form').foo_box.whatever;
>   document.getElementById('foo_box').whatever;
>   document.querySelector('#foo_box').whatever;  // the "new way"
>   window.foo_box;
>
>and even directly:
>
>   foo_box.whatever;
>
>Personally I use getElementById when an element has an id but I am 
>switching more and more over to querySelector (which is a bit more 
>powerful).

Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.

-- 
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)

Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life. 
http://www.breastthermography.info

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

#21186

Ed Jay wrote on 07 sep 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>You can use:
>>
>>   document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>>   document.forms.form.foo_box.whatever;
>>   document.getElementById('form').foo_box.whatever;
>>   document.getElementById('foo_box').whatever;
>>   document.querySelector('#foo_box').whatever;  // the "new way"
>>   window.foo_box;
>>
>>and even directly:
>>
>>   foo_box.whatever;
>>
>>Personally I use getElementById when an element has an id but I am 
>>switching more and more over to querySelector (which is a bit more 
>>powerful).
> 
> Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.

I suppose you could hope so, false hopes abound.

The answer is wrong, unless you prescribe users to use IE.

And there is a difference between name and id.

And name could be a collection.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

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

#21189

Evertjan. wrote:

>Ed Jay wrote on 07 sep 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>>You can use:
>>>
>>>   document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>>>   document.forms.form.foo_box.whatever;
>>>   document.getElementById('form').foo_box.whatever;
>>>   document.getElementById('foo_box').whatever;
>>>   document.querySelector('#foo_box').whatever;  // the "new way"
>>>   window.foo_box;
>>>
>>>and even directly:
>>>
>>>   foo_box.whatever;
>>>
>>>Personally I use getElementById when an element has an id but I am 
>>>switching more and more over to querySelector (which is a bit more 
>>>powerful).
>> 
>> Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.
>
>I suppose you could hope so, false hopes abound.
>
>The answer is wrong, unless you prescribe users to use IE.
>
>And there is a difference between name and id.
>
>And name could be a collection.

The answer I was hoping for was that either method is acceptable, but get
ElementById is faster. Is the answer I received incorrect in that regard?
If it's wrong, perhaps you could provide the correct answer...?
-- 
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

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

#21198

Ed Jay wrote on 07 sep 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Evertjan. wrote:
> 
>>Ed Jay wrote on 07 sep 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>>>You can use:
>>>>
>>>>   document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>>>>   document.forms.form.foo_box.whatever;
>>>>   document.getElementById('form').foo_box.whatever;
>>>>   document.getElementById('foo_box').whatever;
>>>>   document.querySelector('#foo_box').whatever;  // the "new way"
>>>>   window.foo_box;
>>>>
>>>>and even directly:
>>>>
>>>>   foo_box.whatever;
>>>>
>>>>Personally I use getElementById when an element has an id but I am 
>>>>switching more and more over to querySelector (which is a bit more 
>>>>powerful).
>>> 
>>> Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.
>>
>>I suppose you could hope so, false hopes abound.
>>
>>The answer is wrong, unless you prescribe users to use IE.
>>
>>And there is a difference between name and id.
>>
>>And name could be a collection.
> 
> The answer I was hoping for was that either method is acceptable, but
> get ElementById is faster. Is the answer I received incorrect in that
> regard? If it's wrong, perhaps you could provide the correct
> answer...? 

I gave you "the correct response": WRONG.

[for a complete answer, read the relevant posting history of this NG.]

It is wrong in so many ways, and has been discussed so many times.

I specified some of them above.

As I wrote: If you don't specify, how are we, and more important how is 
the scripting engine, to know if you mean an name or an id, and if the 
name is used repeatedly, becomming an collection?


>>>>   foo_box.whatever;

is never accceptable, as it does not work on many browsers, 
and if it does, results are inconsistent, 
and it is subject to the above problems.

Even in IE it was not totally trustworthy.


Examples:

=======================
<input name=a value=b>
<script type='text/javascript'>
    alert(a.value);
</script>
=======================

no popup in Chrome29, inferring a scripting error.
returns 'b' [probably only in IE] in IE10.



=======================
<input name='a' value='b'>
<input id='a' value='c'>
<script type='text/javascript'>
    alert(a.value);
</script>
=======================

returns 'c' in Chrome29
returns 'undefined' in IE10
probably does even worse in elderly IEs.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

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

#21201

Evertjan. wrote:

>Ed Jay wrote on 07 sep 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Evertjan. wrote:
>> 
>>>Ed Jay wrote on 07 sep 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>>>>You can use:
>>>>>
>>>>>   document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>>>>>   document.forms.form.foo_box.whatever;
>>>>>   document.getElementById('form').foo_box.whatever;
>>>>>   document.getElementById('foo_box').whatever;
>>>>>   document.querySelector('#foo_box').whatever;  // the "new way"
>>>>>   window.foo_box;
>>>>>
>>>>>and even directly:
>>>>>
>>>>>   foo_box.whatever;
>>>>>
>>>>>Personally I use getElementById when an element has an id but I am 
>>>>>switching more and more over to querySelector (which is a bit more 
>>>>>powerful).
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.
>>>
>>>I suppose you could hope so, false hopes abound.
>>>
>>>The answer is wrong, unless you prescribe users to use IE.
>>>
>>>And there is a difference between name and id.
>>>
>>>And name could be a collection.
>> 
>> The answer I was hoping for was that either method is acceptable, but
>> get ElementById is faster. Is the answer I received incorrect in that
>> regard? If it's wrong, perhaps you could provide the correct
>> answer...? 
>
>I gave you "the correct response": WRONG.
>
>[for a complete answer, read the relevant posting history of this NG.]
>
>It is wrong in so many ways, and has been discussed so many times.
>
>I specified some of them above.
>
>As I wrote: If you don't specify, how are we, and more important how is 
>the scripting engine, to know if you mean an name or an id, and if the 
>name is used repeatedly, becomming an collection?
>
>
>>>>>   foo_box.whatever;
>
>is never accceptable, as it does not work on many browsers, 
>and if it does, results are inconsistent, 
>and it is subject to the above problems.
>
>Even in IE it was not totally trustworthy.
>
>
>Examples:
>
>=======================
><input name=a value=b>
><script type='text/javascript'>
>    alert(a.value);
></script>
>=======================
>
>no popup in Chrome29, inferring a scripting error.
>returns 'b' [probably only in IE] in IE10.
>
>
>
>=======================
><input name='a' value='b'>
><input id='a' value='c'>
><script type='text/javascript'>
>    alert(a.value);
></script>
>=======================
>
>returns 'c' in Chrome29
>returns 'undefined' in IE10
>probably does even worse in elderly IEs.

Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you're making a big deal
out of using the name attribute. My question pertained to getElementById
and would strongly suggest I'm using ID's and not names. I asked which
technique is faster...you haven't answered the question, but you've gone
off on wild tangents that have nothing to do with the question. 

Seriously, if the question was about comparing addressing techniques, why
would I care about what errors Chrome throws when Name is used? :-))

For the record...my application is restricted to using the Opera browser,
which we supply to our clients along with the app. All pertinent HTML
elements employ the ID attribute.

Thanks, anyway.

-- 
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)

Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life. 
http://www.breastthermography.info

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

#21203

Ed Jay wrote on 08 sep 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:

>>=======================
>><input name='a' value='b'>
>><input id='a' value='c'>
>><script type='text/javascript'>
>>    alert(a.value);
>></script>
>>=======================
>>
>>returns 'c' in Chrome29
>>returns 'undefined' in IE10
>>probably does even worse in elderly IEs.
> 
> Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you're making a big 
deal
> out of using the name attribute. My question pertained to getElementById
> and would strongly suggest I'm using ID's and not names. I asked which
> technique is faster...you haven't answered the question, but you've gone
> off on wild tangents that have nothing to do with the question. 
> 
> Seriously, if the question was about comparing addressing techniques, 
why
> would I care about what errors Chrome throws when Name is used? :-))
> 
> For the record...my application is restricted to using the Opera 
browser,
> which we supply to our clients along with the app. All pertinent HTML
> elements employ the ID attribute.

Ed, you seem to think this Usenet NG is a sort of helpdesk, where you have 
a right to restrict the "answers". If so you are wrong in thinking that.

No, Usenet is a one-to-many, and my responses are ment for those many.

My example shows thet the response given was totally incorrect 
crossbrowserwize, and that you personally want to use only Opera does noet 
mean the responses in this NG should not warn the NG-users that the 
response given was dangerously incorrect.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

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

#21206

Am 08.09.2013 15:55, Ed Jay meinte:

> Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you're making a big deal
> out of using the name attribute. My question pertained to getElementById
> and would strongly suggest I'm using ID's and not names. I asked which
> technique is faster...you haven't answered the question, but you've gone
> off on wild tangents that have nothing to do with the question.

No. Your original question was along the line "which one is better". 
(Which results in a "depends".)

> Seriously, if the question was about comparing addressing techniques, why
> would I care about what errors Chrome throws when Name is used? :-))
>
> For the record...my application is restricted to using the Opera browser,
> which we supply to our clients along with the app. All pertinent HTML
> elements employ the ID attribute.

And you know which one is faster on Opera?


Gregor

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

#21216

On 2013-09-08 15:55, Ed Jay wrote:
> Seriously, if the question was about comparing addressing techniques, why
> would I care about what errors Chrome throws when Name is used? :-))
> 
> For the record...my application is restricted to using the Opera browser,
> which we supply to our clients along with the app.

There's no reason to focus on only one browser when there are standards
compliant methods to do what you need. This type of thinking is what got
us into the mess where a lot of companies were hooked on an obsolete
browser (IE6).

> I asked which technique is faster...

Okay, but I can't think of a situation where the performance of
different ways of accessing form elements matters. They're all fast
enough, even on mobile devices. If everything has IDs, then sure, use
getElementById(). If not, something like this would be my method of choice:

  var elements = document.forms.myForm.elements;

And after that, just use

  elements.foo ... elements.bar ... etc.

One minor nitpick. I keep seeing people use code like this:

  document.forms["myForm"].elements["firstName"].value

This suggests that 'form' and 'elements' are special in some way, but
they're not. You're just accessing properties. You could just as well write

  document["forms"].myForm["elements"].firstName["value"]

If all the names are valid identifiers, it's much simpler to write

  document.forms.myForm.elements.firstName.value

The square brackets aren't needed.


- stefan

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

#21220

Stefan Weiss wrote:

>On 2013-09-08 15:55, Ed Jay wrote:
>> Seriously, if the question was about comparing addressing techniques, why
>> would I care about what errors Chrome throws when Name is used? :-))
>> 
>> For the record...my application is restricted to using the Opera browser,
>> which we supply to our clients along with the app.
>
>There's no reason to focus on only one browser when there are standards
>compliant methods to do what you need. This type of thinking is what got
>us into the mess where a lot of companies were hooked on an obsolete
>browser (IE6).

True...but, as I said, we provide the browser (customized), so for us,
there's no need to be generic.
>
>> I asked which technique is faster...
>
>Okay, but I can't think of a situation where the performance of
>different ways of accessing form elements matters. They're all fast
>enough, even on mobile devices.

Just askin'. If it doesn't matter, that's fine. If it matters, I should
take the route needed for my task.

> If everything has IDs, then sure, use
>getElementById(). If not, something like this would be my method of choice:
>
>  var elements = document.forms.myForm.elements;
>
>And after that, just use
>
>  elements.foo ... elements.bar ... etc.
>
>One minor nitpick. I keep seeing people use code like this:
>
>  document.forms["myForm"].elements["firstName"].value
>
>This suggests that 'form' and 'elements' are special in some way, but
>they're not. You're just accessing properties. You could just as well write
>
>  document["forms"].myForm["elements"].firstName["value"]
>
>If all the names are valid identifiers, it's much simpler to write
>
>  document.forms.myForm.elements.firstName.value
>
>The square brackets aren't needed.
>
Good info. Thanks.

-- 
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)

Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life. 
http://www.breastthermography.info

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

#21224

Ed Jay wrote on 09 sep 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:

>>This suggests that 'form' and 'elements' are special in some way, but
>>they're not. You're just accessing properties. You could just as well
>>write 
>>
>>  document["forms"].myForm["elements"].firstName["value"]
>>
>>If all the names are valid identifiers, it's much simpler to write
>>
>>  document.forms.myForm.elements.firstName.value
>>
>>The square brackets aren't needed.
>>
> Good info. Thanks.

It is bad info, IMHO.

The criterium for valuating code IN THIS NG is not just "does it work" but 
more so is the shown code readable, understandable, adaptable, servicable 
and educational.

Code cases IN THIS NG are examples for all users. It is in that sense 
immaterial if you should think that code is "good" when it works just for 
your personal "needs" in only Safari, and that bad  but "working" code is 
good enough for you.

And the square brackets are NEEDED 
when the string or serial number is a not a scripted litteral.

Examples:

document.forms["myForms"+formnumber].elements[arrayNames[n]].value

This complex string is where the value of document forms over GBI() is 
at its best, when used in a loop and/or in a function:

for (var formnumber=3; formnumber<17; formnumber++)
 for (var n=39; n>17; n--)
  document.forms["mF"+formnumber].elements[arrNam[n]].value = ar[n];

or

function setSomeFormElement(formnumber,n) {
  document.forms["mF"+formnumber].elements[arrNam[n]].value = ar[n];
};

or

var fN = now.getDate(), m = 17;
alert(document.forms[fN - 1].element[m * 2].value );



-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

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

#21227

On 2013-09-09 09:22, Evertjan. wrote:
>>>If all the names are valid identifiers, it's much simpler to write
>>>
>>>  document.forms.myForm.elements.firstName.value
>>>
>>>The square brackets aren't needed.
>>>
>> Good info. Thanks.
> 
> It is bad info, IMHO.
> 
> The criterium for valuating code IN THIS NG is not just "does it work" but 
> more so is the shown code readable, understandable, adaptable, servicable 
> and educational.
> 
> Code cases IN THIS NG are examples for all users. It is in that sense 
> immaterial if you should think that code is "good" when it works just for 
> your personal "needs" in only Safari, and that bad  but "working" code is 
> good enough for you.
> 
> And the square brackets are NEEDED 
> when the string or serial number is a not a scripted litteral.

Which is why I wrote "If all the names are valid identifiers".

> Examples:

[snipped; none of those properties are valid identifiers]

There are reasons for using the square bracket notation, but accessing
form elements like the ones seen in this thread is not one of them.


- stefan

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

#21187

Ed Jay wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>> You can use:
>>
>>   document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>>   document.forms.form.foo_box.whatever;
>>   document.getElementById('form').foo_box.whatever;
>>   document.getElementById('foo_box').whatever;
>>   document.querySelector('#foo_box').whatever;  // the "new way"
>>   window.foo_box;
>>
>>and even directly:
>>
>>   foo_box.whatever;
>>
>>Personally I use getElementById when an element has an id but I am
>>switching more and more over to querySelector (which is a bit more
>>powerful).
> 
> Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.

The wrong answer.  But thanks to your address munging, somebody else will 
have to give you the correct one.
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#21188

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>> Ken wrote:
>>> You can use:
>>>
>>>   document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>>>   document.forms.form.foo_box.whatever;
>>>   document.getElementById('form').foo_box.whatever;
>>>   document.getElementById('foo_box').whatever;
>>>   document.querySelector('#foo_box').whatever;  // the "new way"
>>>   window.foo_box;
>>>
>>>and even directly:
>>>
>>>   foo_box.whatever;
>>>
>>>Personally I use getElementById when an element has an id but I am
>>>switching more and more over to querySelector (which is a bit more
>>>powerful).
>> 
>> Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.
>
>The wrong answer.  But thanks to your address munging, somebody else will 
>have to give you the correct one.
> 
I appreciate your cooperating, although I have no idea wth you're trying
to say.
-- 
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

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

#21196

Ed Jay wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Ed Jay wrote:
>>> Ken wrote:
>>>> You can use:
>>>>
>>>>   document.forms['form'].elements['foo_box'].whatever;
>>>>   document.forms.form.foo_box.whatever;
>>>>   document.getElementById('form').foo_box.whatever;
>>>>   document.getElementById('foo_box').whatever;
>>>>   document.querySelector('#foo_box').whatever;  // the "new way"
>>>>   window.foo_box;
>>>>
>>>> and even directly:
>>>>
>>>>   foo_box.whatever;
>>>>
>>>> Personally I use getElementById when an element has an id but I am
>>>> switching more and more over to querySelector (which is a bit more
>>>> powerful).
>>> 
>>> Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.
>>
>> The wrong answer.  But thanks to your address munging, somebody else will
>> have to give you the correct one.
> 
> I appreciate your cooperating, although I have no idea wth you're trying
> to say.
> […]
> Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

<http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>

HTH

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#21200

On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 01:44:03 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<PointedEars@web.de> wrote:


  <snip>
><http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>

The author thinks it only takes 10 minutes to select and delete
several hundred spam emails.

The author thinks that in 1998 it wasn't a problem downloading 50
100kB spam emails over a slow dial-up link.

  John

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

#21202

John Harris wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 01:44:03 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
><PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>
>
>  <snip>
>><http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>
>
>The author thinks it only takes 10 minutes to select and delete
>several hundred spam emails.
>
>The author thinks that in 1998 it wasn't a problem downloading 50
>100kB spam emails over a slow dial-up link.
>
The author had nothing intelligent to add, but felt the need to make
comment. :-))

-- 
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)

Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life. 
http://www.breastthermography.info

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web