[thelist] Netscape 6.1, radiobuttons, and DTD

[.jeff]

lon,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: lon.kraemer
>
> > It makes perfect sense to me (assuming you meant the
> > RFC requirement) and follows extremely logically.
>
> Sorry, I don't see the logic.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

ok, look at it from this angle.  to you, radio buttons should be able to be
all off.  now, as a user, what if you check one of a group and then decide
you don't want any of that group checked?  now what?  now you're screwed.
however, if there's one checked by default you can at least set the group
back to having the default one checked.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > Now if UAs don't follow the hint (and it's annoying
> > that it's a hint) of the HTML spec that the RFC is the
> > way to go, that's the fault of the browser makers.
>
> Could not that 'hint' be construed a prejudicial or
> 'leading'?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

martin was referring to the hint in the html specs, rather than it being a
declaration about the behavior the ua's should incorporate.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > Do I know of a UA which follows it? NS6.1 apparently.
>
> I can't vouch for NS6.1, but I see no such support in
> NS6.2.1, so apparently any decision to follow this
> 'rule' was reversed. Then again, this may be a DTD thing
> that's skewing the behavior?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

indeed, as the subject of this thread would suggest.  *grin*

the fact that *any* of the common browsers exhibit this behavior is
indication that you should probably account for it.  that's not to mention
the likelihood that it will become more and more standard behavior in the
future and accounting for it now can help future-proof your work.

.jeff

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