[thelist] Deselecting a select element in JS

[.jeff]

andrew,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Hardacker, Andrew
>
> This W3 document, ECMA Script Language Binding, does
> specify that selectedIndex is long (which, in most
> languages, is a signed integer capable of holding a
> positive or negative value). There is no mention of
> valid range; I made my assumption solely on Goodman's
> statement. And we know what happens when we assume...
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yes, very true.  thanks for confirming my suspicions about the long datatype.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > when the word netscape is used, i automatically think
> > nn4.  want me to think nn6?
>
> Yes, sorry, Netscape6. At work (where I am allegedly
> doing productive work even at this minute), our "lowest
> common denominator" for browsers is IE5.0 and Netscape
> 6.2. (I forced Netscape6.1 out of the requirements.)
> Netscape6 may very well have a bug; without strong
> documentation on how this is supposed to work, we may
> never know how it's supposed to work, although we
> probably agree on how it _should_ work.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

agreed.  and how it *should* work should be based on how it's worked in practically every other browser before nn6 was released if the spec isn't clear on the exact behavior.  sucks they missed the boat on this one.  seems to be another case of "where the standard isn't crystal clear, we'll implement how we think it should be done -- established behavior be damned" for nn6, which i've found to be all too common.  and people wonder why i dislike it and developing for it so much.  ;p

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> OK, but I should get back to work on my applet.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

no problem.  i was making reference to lurking.  if you'd lurked in this thread we wouldn't have made some of the discoveries in this thread.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> btw, during this testing Homesite5 crashed. Again. I've
> been using Homesite since its 1.x/$25 shareware days and
> I'm quite attached to it, but I would never call it
> stable. A crash a day, even with version 5.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

wack, i've been using cf studio (homesite on steroids) since v3 and haven't had those problems.  using v5 now and it's absolutely solid (except for some very minor bugs that can be quite annoying if you don't know about them).

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/