Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

"Lee" <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ca5ma4011c 7@drn.newsguy.c om...[color=blue]
> Andrew DeFaria said:
>[color=green]
> >IMHO those 60's ASCII is king types tend to resist change and say with[/color][/color]
tools[color=blue][color=green]
> >that can only do plain text.[/color]
>
> There are very good reasons for limiting newsgroups to plain
> text. Considering that many of the people who post here make
> their livings developing web pages, don't you think your
> accusation is a little silly?[/color]

And they can't find a newsreader that can handle anything but plain text?!?
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> BTW, you're posting your messages in multipart/alternative where you
> >> post two versions of every message of yours - it is just unnecessary
> >> waste.[/color]
> >
> >Tell me something I don't know. BTW: One part *IS* plain text - just what
> >you guys wanted![/color]
>
> Not at all. I thought we had made it clear that we're asking
> for plain text, *only*.[/color]

Hey I know. But you are getting what you asked for, and part that you didn't
ask for. That's all I was saying.

[Lee]

Re: Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

Andrew DeFaria said:[color=blue]
>
>"Lee" <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:ca5ma4011 c7@drn.newsguy. com...[color=green]
>> Andrew DeFaria said:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >IMHO those 60's ASCII is king types tend to resist change and say with[/color][/color]
>tools[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >that can only do plain text.[/color]
>>
>> There are very good reasons for limiting newsgroups to plain
>> text. Considering that many of the people who post here make
>> their livings developing web pages, don't you think your
>> accusation is a little silly?[/color]
>
>And they can't find a newsreader that can handle anything but plain text?!?[/color]

You just don't get it, do you? USENET readers shouldn't have to settle for
software that suits the person who's asking for help. Some have to pay by the
minute for connect time. Some prefer not to risk some pinhead posting live code
that will change the size of their window. There are many reasons for asking
for plain text. Think about other people for a minute and maybe you can come up
with some more.


[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> BTW, you're posting your messages in multipart/alternative where you
>> >> post two versions of every message of yours - it is just unnecessary
>> >> waste.
>> >
>> >Tell me something I don't know. BTW: One part *IS* plain text - just what
>> >you guys wanted![/color]
>>
>> Not at all. I thought we had made it clear that we're asking
>> for plain text, *only*.[/color]
>
>Hey I know. But you are getting what you asked for, and part that you didn't
>ask for. That's all I was saying.[/color]

Is English your first language? We specifically ask for plain
text *only*. That doesn't mean that adding another 150% of
something else is ok. It means plain text *only*.

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

Lee wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> And they can't find a newsreader that can handle anything but plain
>> text?!?[/color]
>
> You just don't get it, do you?[/color]

No I get it. I just don't agree with it. Can you "get" that concept?
[color=blue]
> USENET readers shouldn't have to settle for software that suits the
> person who's asking for help.[/color]

You are free to ignore me.
[color=blue]
> Some have to pay by the minute for connect time.[/color]

And so how much did they have to pay in this silly, recurring debate?
How much do they pay for the endless quoting and quoting that is
prevalent in Usenet groups?
[color=blue]
> Some prefer not to risk some pinhead posting live code that will
> change the size of their window.[/color]

Never met a Usenet posting that resized my window. Besides most readers
allow you to turn off things like JavaScipt.
[color=blue]
> There are many reasons for asking for plain text.[/color]

Yes, I've heard them before....
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Hey I know. But you are getting what you asked for, and part that you
>> didn't ask for. That's all I was saying.[/color]
>
> Is English your first language? We specifically ask for plain text
> *only*. That doesn't mean that adding another 150% of something else
> is ok. It means plain text *only*.[/color]

Duh! I know that! I was just pointing out that what you seek is in
there. In fact it's in there first. When reading news with your plain
text newsreader, after seeing the plain text copy, tell me, 'cause I'm
dying to know, what compels you to read further?!? Why don't you just
skip the HTML copy and move on with it? No, instead you have to berate
people instead of just hitting next.

At this point you're wasting your time, my time and anybody else's time
by continuing to debate this topic. You have your way of doing things. I
have mine. You don't like my way and I'm not particularly fond yours
either. I'm content to allow you to post your way. Can you do the same
for me? (My guess is no).

And really, why can't those plain text newsreader be taught how to
"render" html? I mean on my Linux box when I more an html file it
renders it as text. No biggie. And it tells me if I want to see the raw
HTML then I must append a ":" to the end or the file. Works like a
champ! Easy to use. Now why can't them thar plain text news readers
handle that?!? It's what 2004?...

--
If a person with multiple personalities threatens suicide, is that
considered a hostage situation?

[Lee]

Re: Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

Andrew DeFaria said:
[color=blue]
>You are free to ignore me.[/color]

If this was just a difference of opinion, I wouldn't waste my
time with you, but it's still clear that you simply don't
understand, so there's still hope that something will click
and you'll finally get it. Unfortunately, that requires that
you be willing to at least consider that you might be wrong.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Some have to pay by the minute for connect time.[/color]
>
>And so how much did they have to pay in this silly, recurring debate?
>How much do they pay for the endless quoting and quoting that is
>prevalent in Usenet groups?[/color]

Think for a moment. Those people haven't been involved in
this debate. They saw that your post was in HTML and have
ignored you.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Some prefer not to risk some pinhead posting live code that will
>> change the size of their window.[/color]
>
>Never met a Usenet posting that resized my window. Besides most readers
>allow you to turn off things like JavaScipt.[/color]

Yes, but not all, and that's only one of many reasons.

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Hey I know. But you are getting what you asked for, and part that you
>>> didn't ask for. That's all I was saying.[/color]
>>
>> Is English your first language? We specifically ask for plain text
>> *only*. That doesn't mean that adding another 150% of something else
>> is ok. It means plain text *only*.[/color]
>
>Duh! I know that! I was just pointing out that what you seek is in
>there.[/color]

You still don't understand what "only" means? I'm not seeking
the plain text, I'm seeking the elimination of the HTML portion.

Skipping over the extra text doesn't do anything to prevent my
server from filling up with the wasted text. It doesn't make
it take less time to download the day's messages. Do you
really not see that thousands of people having to hit "next
section" so that you can post the way you like isn't really
reasonable?

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Javascript events: keydown, keyup and change are screwy

"Lee" <REM0VElbspamtr ap@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ca75pr033j @drn.newsguy.co m...[color=blue]
> If this was just a difference of opinion, I wouldn't waste my
> time with you, but it's still clear that you simply don't
> understand, so there's still hope that something will click
> and you'll finally get it. Unfortunately, that requires that
> you be willing to at least consider that you might be wrong.[/color]

For the last time, I DO understand. However I do not agree. Apparently it is
you who do not understand the difference between those two statements. IOW
this is a difference of option, yet you still waste your time. Waste away...
[color=blue]
> Think for a moment. Those people haven't been involved in
> this debate. They saw that your post was in HTML and have
> ignored you.[/color]

As you could too.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >Never met a Usenet posting that resized my window. Besides most readers
> >allow you to turn off things like JavaScipt.[/color]
>
> Yes, but not all, and that's only one of many reasons.[/color]

Get one that does.
[color=blue]
> You still don't understand what "only" means?[/color]

Yes I do. I was decidedly not addressing the term "only".
[color=blue]
> I'm not seeking
> the plain text, I'm seeking the elimination of the HTML portion.[/color]

Then hit next as soon as you see HTML. Viola. Problem solved.
[color=blue]
> Skipping over the extra text doesn't do anything to prevent my
> server from filling up with the wasted text.[/color]

Ah the waste issue. IMHO the enormous and often needless quoting of
everything spoken before on the topic trumps that many times over, yet you
do not crusade about this waste. This tells me that waste is really not the
issue. Let alone space is cheap nowadays.
[color=blue]
> It doesn't make
> it take less time to download the day's messages.[/color]

My application only downloads the header until you read the message. Many
newsreaders allow you to kill by sender. Kill me. I don't care. And your
problem is over.
[color=blue]
> Do you
> really not see that thousands of people having to hit "next
> section" so that you can post the way you like isn't really
> reasonable?[/color]

I highly doubt that thousands of people read my posts on a day to day basis.
Hit next is easy. I betcha you do it many times a day to skip over articles
that, while in your beloved plain text format, is uninteresting to you. To
answer your question, no I don't think it's unreasonable.