Re: [cgiapp] Javascript to set multiple form params

[Brett Sanger <suppressed>]

> 1. I too have pages with hidden's inside forms. Some of the forms are just
> dummy forms used for passing params to another run-mode. For example, I have

This can be done with a run mode that calls other run modes based on
some data (whatever data the Javascript uses, unless you're using
image-based submit buttons).  Mostly though I admit to using GET links
when I want to call such things.  In such a case, I usually only need to
pass some sort of ID, so it's not an ugly link regardless.

> run-mode for SQL processing. It all works and works pretty well, but if
> there's a BETTER way (there's always ANOTHER way,) I'd sure like to know:

"Better" depends on what you value.  I avoid javascript like the plague
because:
1) I work at a govt site, so maximum compatibility is important
2) I've found the value/effort ratio to be poor
3) I'm personally not fond of it :)

You may have equally valid reasons for wanting more javascript and less
perl work.  I wasn't actually trying to criticise the original poster, I
was just trying to understand what he was doing to see if it _required_
Javascript.

> 2. The other thing I'm using JavaScript for that I can't see doing another
> way (without embedding Perl,) is to create dynamic <select> boxes. Ala

Nope, no way of doing that short of some sort of client-side
interpretation.  I can completely appreciate why you'd want this too.

> BTW, as an OT aside, I think we're getting close to a world where
> JavaScript/Browser incompatibilities will be a thing of the past. Also, I

Since I just got a HipTop, which doesn't support javascript, and my bank
just updated their online banking page to use some buggy JS that Moz 1.5
doesn't run.  (silently fails to do anything)  I can't say I agree, as
far as the short term goes.

> remember during the rapid growth days of the WWW, many web sites disclaimed
> that you need a specific browser in order to use the site or some such

They've stopped SAYING it, but it's still every bit as true.  It's just
that 95% of the world is running a kind of recent version of IE.

> nonsense. I think for some applications (maybe very few), it's not such a
> terrible thing that a client needs a specific browser or version thereof,

Agreed.  The correct tool for the correct job, etc.

> JavaScript does seem to have a place and it certainly doesn't appear to be
> going away ... at least until browsers provide Perl interpreters to handle
> user events :)

Also agreed.  That doesn't mean I will encourage people to use it
outside of "its place", but that's flame war material outside the scope
of this list.  :)


-- 
SwiftOne  /  Brett Sanger
suppressed   

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
              http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed