Scott I am in awe of how you have combined coding, physics and philosophy - I
will now always think of Schrödinger's cat enclosed in <\p> tags :)
Scott Morrow wrote
> So then the “empty” field *is* truly empty and it is the act of “looking”
> at the htmlText that causes the
>
>
> tags. Schrö
So then the “empty” field *is* truly empty and it is the act of “looking” at
the htmlText that causes the tags. Schrödinger's cat may have more to
say on this.
--
Scott Morrow
Elementary Software
(Now with 20% less chalk dust!)
web http://elementarysoftware.com/
email sc...@elementar
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:28 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> I just think it's wrong, purely for the sake of consistency in the
> language.
In some ways your argument is correct; as with my own pet peeve, what the
language does when putting empty into an item:
put 1,2,3,4 into tStore
put the number
I keep having this niggling feeling that the devs did this for some good
reason, and that if empty text didn’t correspond to in htmlText, the
engine would choke, cough and sputter when it discovered to it’s horror that
the htmlText of anything was literally empty.
Either way, I’m still going t
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
> Using was an example. If you have in an HTML file, the
> browser will still render the HTML as empty. Of course there are tons of
> tags will accomplish the same.
>
Ah, but if you had a style applied to p that shows a border then the borde
On 3/19/14, 1:45 PM, Peter Haworth wrote:
I'm not sure why this is such a problem. Html isn't regular text and
shouldn't be treated as such, that's why htmltext is a separate property
from text.
It isn't a problem really, and it doesn't require immediate attention. I
just think it's wrong, pu
Using was an example. If you have in an HTML file, the
browser will still render the HTML as empty. Of course there are tons of
tags will accomplish the same.
And if the HTMLtext is limited to a field, then the field is essentially
the entire document. The HTML isn't describing the content of
Trevor,
When a browser renders "" it displays nothing.
Correct htmlText starts and ends with p tags. That's the LiveCode
convention. Anything else is not htmlText. Therefore, if a text is
empty, to have valid htmlText the propety still needs to return the tags.
Currently, we wil always know
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
> Maybe it helps (or hinders) to consider the fact the following renders as
> empty in a web browser, even though clearly there is code content present:
>
>
>
>
>
>
True. But doesn't mean that you have 1 empty paragraph? I think
that the H
On Mar 19, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
> Maybe it helps (or hinders) to consider the fact the following renders as
> empty in a web browser, even though clearly there is code content present:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So given what HTML is, checking if the HTML content of a field is empty
> do
I'm not sure why this is such a problem. Html isn't regular text and
shouldn't be treated as such, that's why htmltext is a separate property
from text.
If the current behavior was changed, I'm sure it would cause backward
compatibility problems.
If you want to check if a field is empty - if fie
Jacque,
I don't agree and the solution is simple: just include a statement in
the docs that the htmlText property is never empty but always returns at
least one pair of p tags.
--
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-ta
Maybe it helps (or hinders) to consider the fact the following renders as
empty in a web browser, even though clearly there is code content present:
So given what HTML is, checking if the HTML content of a field is empty
doesn't really compare to checking if the code content of a field is emp
: Problem with setting htmlText of field to empty in LiveCode 6.6
RC2
I'm with Jacque - definitely a bug
-
"Some are born coders, some achieve coding, and some have coding thrust upon
them." - William Shakespeare & Hugh Senior
--
View this message in context:
http://runtim
On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:57 AM, "J. Landman Gay"
wrote:
> On 3/19/14, 10:25 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
>> I am struggling to see when this would present an impassible problem.
>
> I grant that it's trivial and not a high priority. But it makes the language
> inconsistent, and I see that as the prima
I'm with Jacque - definitely a bug
-
"Some are born coders, some achieve coding, and some have coding thrust upon
them." - William Shakespeare & Hugh Senior
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Problem-with-setting-htmlText-of-field-to-empty-in
On 19.03.2014 at 10:29 Uhr -0400 Tim Bleiler apparently wrote:
Being a contrarian again, Jacqueline? I was all set to forget about
this. I really hate posting bug reports that aren't bugs but I agree
with you on this from my Livecode centric world view.
Anyone else have any insights into the
On 3/19/14, 10:25 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
I am struggling to see when this would present an impassible problem.
I grant that it's trivial and not a high priority. But it makes the
language inconsistent, and I see that as the primary issue.
I gave an example in another post of how it could aff
On 3/19/14, 9:35 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
In the past 15 years I never had any problems with htmlText always
containing p tags, even if the text of the field was empty.
Therefore, I think it is no bug.
I haven't had any problem with it either, but that doesn't mean it isn't
a bug. Consider
On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> I do not see this as a bug. Is it possible that there is some HTML convention
> that requires some kind of tag/ending tag to be present for a page to be
> considered an html page? And I agree with Richmond that if a field is empty,
> there is
I do not see this as a bug. Is it possible that there is some HTML convention
that requires some kind of tag/ending tag to be present for a page to be
considered an html page? And I agree with Richmond that if a field is empty,
there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for the HTML Text of the field to be anythi
On 19/03/14 16:45, Mark Schonewille wrote:
Tim,
I would expect a real beginner to use the put command:
put fld x into fld y
put something into fld x
put fld y into something
etc.
Once your going to use htmlText, perhaps you're not a real beginner anymore. It seems you
have a lot of experience
Tim,
I would expect a real beginner to use the put command:
put fld x into fld y
put something into fld x
put fld y into something
etc.
Once your going to use htmlText, perhaps you're not a real beginner anymore. It
seems you have a lot of experience with other programming language. Perhaps
th
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
> That's a matter of interpretation. By "clearing the htmlText" I mean
> "resetting it to "".
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
> Jacque,
>
> In the past 15 years I never had any problems with htmlText always containing
On 19/03/14 16:30, Mark Schonewille wrote:
Richmond,
That's a matter of interpretation. By "clearing the htmlText" I mean
"resetting it to "".
Well, now we have 2 conumdrums for the price of one:
1. When is 'empty' empty?
2. When does "clearing the text" clear the text?
Well; even if nothi
Jacque,
In the past 15 years I never had any problems with htmlText always containing p
tags, even if the text of the field was empty. Therefore, I think it is no bug.
--
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitt
Richmond,
That's a matter of interpretation. By "clearing the htmlText" I mean
"resetting it to "".
--
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553
Use Color C
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:18 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> To me it looks like the engine wraps the html in opening and closing tags,
> and when there is no content it forgets to take them off. I think the
> logical concept of empty outweighs the technical meaning of the html and it's
> a bug.
Hi Tim,
Am 19.03.2014 um 15:18 schrieb Tim Bleiler :
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Richmond wrote:
>
>> When I was a kid I wondered why babies were born the way they were, rather
>> than in hygienically packaged eggs
>> like chickens.
>
> Great! Thanks, Richmond. Now I've got to worry about
To me it looks like the engine wraps the html in opening and closing tags, and
when there is no content it forgets to take them off. I think the logical
concept of empty outweighs the technical meaning of the html and it's a bug.
On March 19, 2014 9:02:28 AM CDT, Tim Bleiler wrote:
>
>On Mar
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Richmond wrote:
> When I was a kid I wondered why babies were born the way they were, rather
> than in hygienically packaged eggs
> like chickens.
Great! Thanks, Richmond. Now I've got to worry about that, too!
Tim
___
u
On 19/03/14 16:10, Tim Bleiler wrote:
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Richmond wrote:
Well, of course that's logically fairly crappy.
The way to test if an htmlField is empty is surely something like this:
if the htmlText of fld "f1" is not "" then
put "Yippee-Do, 'tis empty my friend!"
end
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
> This clears the text, the htmlText, the unicodeText and the rtfText of the
> field. Why would you want to test that only the htmlText is empty?
Yes, all true, it's definitely easy to deal with. I stumbled on it by accident
and thought it
On 19/03/14 16:09, Mark Schonewille wrote:
Hi Tim,
Why would you want to do this? To make a field empty, just put empty
into the field and if you want you can test that it is empty:
put empty into fld 1
put (fld 1 is empty) --> true
This clears the text, the htmlText,
Not exactly: "put em
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Richmond wrote:
> Well, of course that's logically fairly crappy.
>
> The way to test if an htmlField is empty is surely something like this:
>
> if the htmlText of fld "f1" is not "" then
> put "Yippee-Do, 'tis empty my friend!"
> end if
Sure, it's easy to dea
Hi Tim,
Why would you want to do this? To make a field empty, just put empty
into the field and if you want you can test that it is empty:
put empty into fld 1
put (fld 1 is empty) --> true
This clears the text, the htmlText, the unicodeText and the rtfText of
the field. Why would you want t
On 19/03/14 16:02, Tim Bleiler wrote:
On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Klaus major-k wrote:
Are others seeing this and is it a bug?
since is in fact the HTML equivalent to "empty/no text" I would not
consider this a bug :-)
Thanks Klaus, I thought I should check on that before putting in a bug
On 19/03/14 15:39, Klaus major-k wrote:
Hi Tim,
Am 19.03.2014 um 14:30 schrieb Tim Bleiler :
Hi,
After doing a quick check, this problem has existed for at least a couple of
versions, but I just noticed it.
I've only checked on a Mac.
When a new field is created it appears to be empty but t
Hi Tim,
Am 19.03.2014 um 15:02 schrieb Tim Bleiler :
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Klaus major-k wrote:
>>> Are others seeing this and is it a bug?
>> since is in fact the HTML equivalent to "empty/no text" I would not
>> consider this a bug :-)
> Thanks Klaus, I thought I should check on that
On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Klaus major-k wrote:
>> Are others seeing this and is it a bug?
>
> since is in fact the HTML equivalent to "empty/no text" I would not
> consider this a bug :-)
Thanks Klaus, I thought I should check on that before putting in a bug report.
It seemed too obvious
Hi Tim,
Am 19.03.2014 um 14:30 schrieb Tim Bleiler :
> Hi,
>
> After doing a quick check, this problem has existed for at least a couple of
> versions, but I just noticed it.
>
> I've only checked on a Mac.
> When a new field is created it appears to be empty but the htmlText of the
> field
Hi,
After doing a quick check, this problem has existed for at least a couple of
versions, but I just noticed it.
I've only checked on a Mac.
When a new field is created it appears to be empty but the htmlText of the
field is .
The number of lines reported for the field is 0.
The text of th
42 matches
Mail list logo
