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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #25682 > unrolled thread

Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser

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

Contents

  Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser PS <poonam.sachdeva5@gmail.com> - 2014-08-15 14:44 -0700
    Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-16 00:15 +0200
      Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser PS <poonam.sachdeva5@gmail.com> - 2014-08-15 15:22 -0700
        Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-16 00:40 +0200
          Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser PS <poonam.sachdeva5@gmail.com> - 2014-08-15 15:43 -0700
            Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser PS <poonam.sachdeva5@gmail.com> - 2014-08-15 15:55 -0700
              Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-16 10:09 +0200
            Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-16 10:04 +0200
            Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-08-16 09:55 +0100
      Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-16 01:21 +0200
        Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser PS <poonam.sachdeva5@gmail.com> - 2014-08-15 16:37 -0700
          Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-16 02:09 +0200
            Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-08-16 17:24 +0100
              Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-16 18:37 +0200
                FAQ (was: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-08-16 20:19 +0200
                  Re: FAQ (was: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-08-17 18:10 +0100
                    Re: FAQ (was: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-17 19:28 +0200
                      Re: FAQ (was: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-08-18 14:44 +0100
                        Re: FAQ (was: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-18 22:46 +0200
                    Re: FAQ "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-17 21:31 +0200
                      Re: FAQ John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-08-18 15:05 +0100
                        Re: FAQ "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-18 22:38 +0200
                          Re: FAQ John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-08-19 16:23 +0100
                            Re: FAQ "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-21 00:54 +0200
                          Re: FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-08-25 21:01 +0200
                            Re: FAQ "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-09-02 23:07 +0200
                              Re: FAQ Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-09-03 01:53 +0200
                                Re: FAQ "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-09-04 02:15 +0200
    Re: Onclick event doesnt work in webkit browser "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-16 01:17 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#25710 — Re: FAQ

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 21:31:29 +0200, "Christoph M. Becker"
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:


  <snip>
> And I am finally sick of discussing this issue with pigheads, who prefer
> an unmaintained FAQ with out-dated information over a FAQ that is
> maintained by somebody they don't like, even when there are no
> alternative volunteers.

It's difficult to trust someone who flatly refuses to do the job in a
professional way. Viz. Do it the open source way : make draft changes
public so with more eyeballs you stand a better chance of spotting
hiccups beforehand rather than leaving it until it's deemed to be too
late. It's good enough for programming language standards after all
(except ES4 and look what happened to that).

  <snip>
> ), if the
> official newsgroup FAQ didn't imply that only questions are welcome (and
> this can't be changed, unfortunately).
  <snip>

This illustrates why open drafts are a good idea.

  John

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

#25711 — Re: FAQ

John Harris wrote:

> It's difficult to trust someone who flatly refuses to do the job in a
> professional way. Viz. Do it the open source way : make draft changes
> public so with more eyeballs you stand a better chance of spotting
> hiccups beforehand rather than leaving it until it's deemed to be too
> late. It's good enough for programming language standards after all
> (except ES4 and look what happened to that).

The current way is professional enough for me; you can always go to
<http://pointedears.de/wsvn/FAQs/trunk/cljs/?op=log&isdir=1&> to view
the changelog.  If any particular change is not welcome, it can still be
discussed, and I'm pretty sure that Thomas will revert it, if there is
broad consensus in the group.

The great advantage of the current approach: a proposed change (often
only fixing a typo or a broken link) will not have to wait forever.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#25713 — Re: FAQ

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:38:23 +0200, "Christoph M. Becker"
<cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:

> John Harris wrote:
> 
> > It's difficult to trust someone who flatly refuses to do the job in a
> > professional way. Viz. Do it the open source way : make draft changes
> > public so with more eyeballs you stand a better chance of spotting
> > hiccups beforehand rather than leaving it until it's deemed to be too
> > late. It's good enough for programming language standards after all
> > (except ES4 and look what happened to that).
> 
> The current way is professional enough for me; you can always go to
> <http://pointedears.de/wsvn/FAQs/trunk/cljs/?op=log&isdir=1&> to view
> the changelog.  If any particular change is not welcome, it can still be
> discussed, and I'm pretty sure that Thomas will revert it, if there is
> broad consensus in the group.
> 
> The great advantage of the current approach: a proposed change (often
> only fixing a typo or a broken link) will not have to wait forever.

You seem to confuse approval with discussion & comments. If there's a
disagreement it's then the editor's job to do the appropriate action
in an unbiased way without undue delay. 'Action' can range all the way
from choosing the winning argument to removing an entire section from
the document.

  John

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

#25716 — Re: FAQ

John Harris wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:38:23 +0200, "Christoph M. Becker"
> <cmbecker69@arcor.de> wrote:
> 
>> The current way is professional enough for me; you can always go to
>> <http://pointedears.de/wsvn/FAQs/trunk/cljs/?op=log&isdir=1&> to view
>> the changelog.  If any particular change is not welcome, it can still be
>> discussed, and I'm pretty sure that Thomas will revert it, if there is
>> broad consensus in the group.
>>
>> The great advantage of the current approach: a proposed change (often
>> only fixing a typo or a broken link) will not have to wait forever.
> 
> You seem to confuse approval with discussion & comments. If there's a
> disagreement it's then the editor's job to do the appropriate action
> in an unbiased way without undue delay. 'Action' can range all the way
> from choosing the winning argument to removing an entire section from
> the document.

In theory I agree with you.  However, what you are demanding can't be
fulfilled, because there is no volunteer to do it--and beggars can't be
choosers.

In my opinion having an unmaintained FAQ is worse than having no FAQ at
all.  In your opinion it is the other way round.

So let's save everybody's time and end this fruitless discussion.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#25725 — Re: FAQ

Christoph M. Becker wrote:

> The current way is professional enough for me; you can always go to
> <http://pointedears.de/wsvn/FAQs/trunk/cljs/?op=log&isdir=1&> to view
> the changelog.  If any particular change is not welcome, it can still be
> discussed, and I'm pretty sure that Thomas will revert it, if there is
> broad consensus in the group.

JFTR: With the exception of changes like fixing typos and dead links, that 
is _not_ how I would like it to work, and it is not how it worked until now.
 
> The great advantage of the current approach: a proposed change (often
> only fixing a typo or a broken link) will not have to wait forever.

ISTM you are misunderstanding my approach.  IIRC, the suggestions I have 
received so far all had the virtue of causing only considerably small, 
obvious changes, of being submitted *by subscribers of the newsgroup* to no 
dissent within a reasonable time span, and were therefore implemented by me 
without consulting the newsgroup any further.

There are other changes overdue in the FAQ content that are not that easy to 
make, and ISTM that I will have to suggest to the newsgroup because either 
nobody else sees them or cares about them enough.

Please read my announcement again so that you better understand how I would 
like this to work.  (Whereas I am working on other ways for people to make 
suggestions, to be discussed in the newsgroup, than just the newsgroup.)

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#25804 — Re: FAQ

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> 
>> The great advantage of the current approach: a proposed change (often
>> only fixing a typo or a broken link) will not have to wait forever.
> 
> ISTM you are misunderstanding my approach.  IIRC, the suggestions I have 
> received so far all had the virtue of causing only considerably small, 
> obvious changes, of being submitted *by subscribers of the newsgroup* to no 
> dissent within a reasonable time span, and were therefore implemented by me 
> without consulting the newsgroup any further.

I believe, I do *not* misunderstand your approach.  Thus I wrote
"proposed" (I might have clarified by writing "puclicly proposed") and
"often only fixing a typo or a broken link" (I've added "often", because
there are a few changes, for instance, "Updated paragraph on
'javascript'"[1], which might not be regarded as corrections by *some*
regulars).

> There are other changes overdue in the FAQ content that are not that easy to 
> make, and ISTM that I will have to suggest to the newsgroup because either 
> nobody else sees them or cares about them enough.

I am aware of several issues (*for instance*, "The Internet Explorer
Memory Leak Problem"[2]), but I had not yet found the time to
investigate on them further to be able to make an appropriate proposal.

> Please read my announcement again so that you better understand how I would 
> like this to work.  (Whereas I am working on other ways for people to make 
> suggestions, to be discussed in the newsgroup, than just the newsgroup.)

I believe, that I am well aware of how you would like this to work.
However, when you had announced that, there were several complaints that
your desired approach would not be formal enough.  It seems to me, some
regulars prefer a far more bureaucratic approach.

However, the actual approach might not matter all too much at all.  As
soon as there would be consensus required for a substantial change to
the FAQ, unfortunately there will be none -- at least I'm pretty sure of
that, considering the past.  Votings might be a solution, but:

  * Who would be entitled to vote?
  * Do changes to FAQ require a simple majority, or a supermajority?
  * What would be the rules for three options (keep, remove, improve)?
  * ...

[1]
<http://pointedears.de/wsvn/FAQs?op=comp&compare[]=/trunk/cljs/@29&compare[]=/trunk/cljs/@30>
[2] <http://pointedears.de/scripts/faq/cljs/notes/closures/#clMem>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#25806 — Re: FAQ

Christoph M. Becker wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>>> The great advantage of the current approach: a proposed change (often
>>> only fixing a typo or a broken link) will not have to wait forever.
>> ISTM you are misunderstanding my approach.  IIRC, the suggestions I have
>> received so far all had the virtue of causing only considerably small,
>> obvious changes, of being submitted *by subscribers of the newsgroup* to
>> no dissent within a reasonable time span, and were therefore implemented
>> by me without consulting the newsgroup any further.
> 
> I believe, I do *not* misunderstand your approach.  Thus I wrote
> "proposed" (I might have clarified by writing "puclicly proposed") and
> "often only fixing a typo or a broken link" (I've added "often", because
> there are a few changes, for instance, "Updated paragraph on
> 'javascript'"[1], which might not be regarded as corrections by *some*
> regulars).

You have suggested elsewhere in this thread that I would make all changes to 
the FAQ for comp.lang.javascript unilaterally and revert/modify them later 
only upon sufficient protest here.  That is explicitly *not* my approach, 
and it never was.  Please do not suggest otherwise; such talk is counter-
productive.
 
>> There are other changes overdue in the FAQ content that are not that easy
>> to make, and ISTM that I will have to suggest to the newsgroup because
>> either nobody else sees them or cares about them enough.
> 
> I am aware of several issues (*for instance*, "The Internet Explorer
> Memory Leak Problem"[2]), but I had not yet found the time to
> investigate on them further to be able to make an appropriate proposal.

No offense meant.  However, it is the “enough” in that statement that 
matters.  If something is important enough, one *makes* time to do it.
I am no exception there.
 
>> Please read my announcement again so that you better understand how I
>> would like this to work.  (Whereas I am working on other ways for people
>> to make suggestions, to be discussed in the newsgroup, than just the
>> newsgroup.)
> 
> I believe, that I am well aware of how you would like this to work.
> However, when you had announced that, there were several complaints that
> your desired approach would not be formal enough.  It seems to me, some
> regulars prefer a far more bureaucratic approach.

IIRC, there is *one person* openly objecting to that approach, or rather to 
the person who follows it, and whether the former one can be called a 
regular of this newsgroup at all is debatable.  I find it rather surprising 
that you think they are that important for this newsgroup to merit any 
derious, extended discussion with them.  A regular would contribute on-topic 
information to the newsgroup on a regular basis; so far, that person 
provably did not.  And please do not excuse this by saying there is nothing 
on-topic to discuss (as you did erlier); the on-topic discussions that took 
place in the meantime in which said person did not participate, were many, 
actually – Honi soit qui mal y pense.
 
> However, the actual approach might not matter all too much at all.  As
> soon as there would be consensus required for a substantial change to
> the FAQ, unfortunately there will be none -- at least I'm pretty sure of
> that, considering the past.  Votings might be a solution, but:
> 
>   * Who would be entitled to vote?

It would have to be either everyone or no-one.  However, I am not aware of 
any newsgroup FAQ whose content was decided by public vote, including the 
current one.  Given that there will always be few who know what they are 
talking about, and many who do not, that is probably good so.

*Newsgroups* are being voted on (CfV) because placing a Yea/Nay/Abstain vote 
on whether to create or delete a newsgroup, or reorganize a hierarchy does 
not require expertise on the topic of that newsgroup (that *useful*, 
factually *correct* FAQ content does).

>   * Do changes to FAQ require a simple majority, or a supermajority?
>   * What would be the rules for three options (keep, remove, improve)?
>   * ...

I have overlooked the Sarcasm Sign[tm] again, have I not?

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#25817 — Re: FAQ

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> 
> You have suggested elsewhere in this thread that I would make all changes to 
> the FAQ for comp.lang.javascript unilaterally and revert/modify them later 
> only upon sufficient protest here.

IIRC, I did not -- I least I did not meant to.  You may be referring to
<lsto7t$dkb$1@solani.org>, but there I meant to refer to changes that
did already happen, and to minor changes that may happen in the future.

> No offense meant.  However, it is the “enough” in that statement that 
> matters.  If something is important enough, one *makes* time to do it.
> I am no exception there.

No offense taken. :)

> IIRC, there is *one person* openly objecting to that approach, or rather to 
> the person who follows it, and whether the former one can be called a 
> regular of this newsgroup at all is debatable.  

However, there were *only three* people involved in the latest
discussion regarding the FAQ.

> I find it rather surprising 
> that you think they are that important for this newsgroup to merit any 
> derious, extended discussion with them.  A regular would contribute on-topic 
> information to the newsgroup on a regular basis; 

Perhaps I have misinterpreted the term "regular".  At least until now I
would have defined it simply as "someone who posts regularly"
(potentially including even trolls).

>>   * Who would be entitled to vote?
> 
> It would have to be either everyone or no-one.  However, I am not aware of 
> any newsgroup FAQ whose content was decided by public vote, including the 
> current one.  Given that there will always be few who know what they are 
> talking about, and many who do not, that is probably good so.

ACK.  However, who's to judge?

>>   * Do changes to FAQ require a simple majority, or a supermajority?
>>   * What would be the rules for three options (keep, remove, improve)?
>>   * ...
> 
> I have overlooked the Sarcasm Sign[tm] again, have I not?

I find it rather natural to be cynical when it comes to these
discussions regarding the FAQ *again*.  They come up from time to time
since years without any consensus -- and lately without even broad
participation. :(

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#25688

PS wrote:

> I am trying to change my GUI on onclick. It works fine in google
> chrome and firefox but doesnt work in webkit browser. Tried to debug
> but it doesnt go into the function only. Have tried using
> addEventListeners but it doesnt work as well. it doesnt trigger the
> onclick.
> 
> <select name="MetricType" id="MetricType" onclick="UpdateMetricFromGUI();">

Use "onchange" instead of "onclick".

And please read and heed the Newsgroup's rules regarding posting[1].

[1] <http://pointedears.de/scripts/faq/cljs/notes/posting/>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web