RE: checkbox event handler

> From:	pdf@bizfon.com [SMTP:pdf@bizfon.com]
> 
> I appologize if this is the incorrect list to discuss this.  I just
> figured that
> event handlers could be discussed, since they are in the html spec..  :)
> 
	[DJW:]  The trick is to pose the question as a problem in
	the specification.  Most questions these days are how to use
	Javascript questions.  The specification does seem to need
	tightening up.

> I have already looked at the link you sent below, which is why I wanted to
> post
> my question to the html list.  There seems to be javascript examples
> throughout
> the html specs, yet I can't find any sort of javascript specs on the W3
> site.
	[DJW:]  
	Javascript is not specified by W3C.  What's loosely called
	Javascript is actually really two things:  the language and
	the document object model.  The nearest to a form definition
	of the language is ECMA's ECMA Script.

	W3C have document object model definitions, but, unless they
	have sneaked one in recently, they do not have one that matches
	either the IE5 or NS4 models, but only one that
	corresponds to that used by IE for XML.  I think NS6 may support
	it for HTML.

	What you may understand as a W3C definition of Javascript appers
	as the ECMA Script language binding, but this relies on external
	sources for the structure of the language itself:

	<http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2/ecma-script-binding.html>
>  
> The link basically just says that you can use the onchange event for the
> INPUT
> tag, but doesn't mention anything about limits to it.  For example, does
> the
> onchange event apply only to the "value" of the INPUT, or does it also
> apply to
> the "checked" property of the checkbox INPUT tag?  In my opinion, these
> are html
> questions, because it is concerning the INPUT tag of type checkbox.
	[DJW:]  
	The spec does seem to be rather loose with its use of the word
	"value", but the rules for form submission and for input type=
	reset seem, to me, to indicate that checkboxes where intended to
	have values.  If it is ever revised, I think they need to make
	it so that the individual control descriptions really do fulfill
	the promise of section 17.2 to define "initial value" and
	"current value".

-- 
--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.


>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 4 August 2000 12:46:42 UTC