dragging image gives odd behavior
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Alt text for equations
Next: qooxlisp live
From: SteveYoungGoogle on 10 Jun 2010 04:21 On Jun 9, 6:04 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > You are mixing and matching DOM's. Forget returning false unless you > are using DOM0. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this? I tried the OP's code with "return false" in the three event handlers Mouseup, Mousedown and Mousemove and it worked perfectly in Firefox 3.5 and IE6 (on Wine). This is a genuine attempt to learn something and therefore it would be appreciated if you could turn off the sarcasm for a short time. Regards, Steve.
From: Richard Cornford on 10 Jun 2010 06:28 On Jun 10, 9:21 am, SteveYoungGoogle wrote: > On Jun 9, 6:04 pm, David Mark wrote: > <snip> >> You are mixing and matching DOM's. Forget returning false >> unless you are using DOM0. > > Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this? I tried > the OP's code with "return false" in the three event handlers > Mouseup, Mousedown and Mousemove and it worked perfectly in > Firefox 3.5 and IE6 (on Wine). <snip> Aren't you making the point here? Where - return false; - ever works to cancel a default action it works everywhere, and there is no need to involve - preventDefault - calls. That is, if using 'DOM 0' event handling is viable then it is all that is needed. Unless you mean that you tried code with both - return false; - and - preventDefault - calls, in which case you should not take "worked perfectly" as indicative of correctness. It is possible to add any number of redundant and pointless actions to code that already "worked perfectly" without stopping it from working, and then the observation that it still "worked perfectly" would not justify the redundant and pointless actions added to the original. Richard.
From: David Mark on 10 Jun 2010 06:45 On Jun 10, 4:21 am, SteveYoungGoogle <stephen.jo...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jun 9, 6:04 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > <snip> > > > You are mixing and matching DOM's. Forget returning false unless you > > are using DOM0. > > Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this? I tried the OP's > code with "return false" in the three event handlers Mouseup, > Mousedown and Mousemove and it worked perfectly in Firefox 3.5 and IE6 > (on Wine). And which has more weight, observations of "perfection" (as seen in such classics as jQuery unit tests, SlickSpeed, etc.) or understanding? It's the same lesson over and over. Do not program by observation. If the only justification you have for a line of code is your observation that it "works perfectly" in whatever browsers you have on hand, you have no justification at all. Furthermore, did I say that returning false could not work? > > This is a genuine attempt to learn something and therefore it would be > appreciated if you could turn off the sarcasm for a short time. > What sarcasm? Perhaps you should have a native English speaker read this thread back to you. :) Next time you want help, leave off the random insult.
From: SteveYoungGoogle on 10 Jun 2010 06:56
On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, Richard Cornford <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Jun 10, 9:21 am, SteveYoungGoogle wrote:> On Jun 9, 6:04 pm, David Mark wrote: > > <snip> > >> You are mixing and matching DOM's. Forget returning false > >> unless you are using DOM0. > > > Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this? I tried > > the OP's code with "return false" in the three event handlers > > Mouseup, Mousedown and Mousemove and it worked perfectly in > > Firefox 3.5 and IE6 (on Wine). > > <snip> > > Aren't you making the point here? Where - return false; - ever works > to cancel a default action it works everywhere, and there is no need > to involve - preventDefault - calls. That is, if using 'DOM 0' event > handling is viable then it is all that is needed. > > Unless you mean that you tried code with both - return false; - and - > preventDefault - calls, in which case you should not take "worked > perfectly" as indicative of correctness. It is possible to add any > number of redundant and pointless actions to code that already "worked > perfectly" without stopping it from working, and then the observation > that it still "worked perfectly" would not justify the redundant and > pointless actions added to the original. > > Richard. I see now, thanks for the explanation. I did only use "return false" but David's comment confused me. My bad. Steve. |