[thelist] DOM - removeNode() problems

[Tom Dell'Aringa]

--- Jeff Howden <jeff at jeffhowden.com> wrote:
> agreed, but i'm sure there's some explanation for that.

Yep, probably.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > > first, and simplest, you can set the innerHTML of your
> > > error <div> to an empty string.
> >
> > Yeah, while easy I want to avoid it since its not the
> > DOM.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> well, i'd give that reason a big, fat *whatever*.  ;p
> i seem to recall just a few months ago you were trying to find
> reasons to use non-dom0 ways to access forms and form elements.  
> considering the level of support for innerHTML, what exactly is 
> your reasoning here again?

Mmm, I might have been, don't remember. If a client ask for something
along that lines, then I do it. Or the situation fit such. Anyway, I
mainly want to use the DOM to do it for my own purposes and for an
article. It may be that innerHTML is just as good a choice.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > I like 2 and 3 the best, I'll try those. Thanks jeff.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> what strikes me as funny is that both methods are practically
> identical.
> it's too bad there's not a removeChildNodes() method that would
> clear out all children of an object in one method call.

Too true.

Tom


=====
http://www.pixelmech.com/ :: Web Development Services
http://www.DMXzone.com/ :: Premium Content Author / JavaScript / Every Friday!
http://www.maccaws.com/ :: Group Leader
[Making A Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards]

"That's not art, that's just annoying." -- Squidward