On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:28 AM, J. Landman Gay jac...@hyperactivesw.comwrote:
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
So then the “empty” field *is* truly empty and it is the act of “looking” at
the htmlText that causes the p/p 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
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\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
p
/p
tags.
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 p/p.
The number of lines reported for the field is 0.
The text
Hi Tim,
Am 19.03.2014 um 14:30 schrieb Tim Bleiler blei...@buffalo.edu:
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
On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Klaus major-k wrote:
Are others seeing this and is it a bug?
since p/p 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 to
Hi Tim,
Am 19.03.2014 um 15:02 schrieb Tim Bleiler blei...@buffalo.edu:
On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Klaus major-k wrote:
Are others seeing this and is it a bug?
since p/p is in fact the HTML equivalent to empty/no text I would not
consider this a bug :-)
Thanks Klaus, I thought I should
On 19/03/14 15:39, Klaus major-k wrote:
Hi Tim,
Am 19.03.2014 um 14:30 schrieb Tim Bleiler blei...@buffalo.edu:
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
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 p/p 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
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
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 p/p then
put Yippee-Do, 'tis empty my friend!
end if
Sure, it's easy to deal with
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
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 16:10, 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 p/p then
put Yippee-Do, 'tis empty my friend!
end if
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
___
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
Hi Tim,
Am 19.03.2014 um 15:18 schrieb Tim Bleiler blei...@buffalo.edu:
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
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.
Richmond,
That's a matter of interpretation. By clearing the htmlText I mean
resetting it to p/p.
--
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
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
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 p/p.
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 nothing
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 p/p.
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
p
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
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
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
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 NO
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 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
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
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:
On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:57 AM, J. Landman Gay jac...@hyperactivesw.com
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
+1
Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net
-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of Dave Kilroy
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 1:45 PM
To: use-revolut...@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re:
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:
html
body
/body
/html
So given what HTML is, checking if the HTML content of a field is empty
doesn't really compare to checking if the code
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:
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
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:
html
body
/body
/html
So given what HTML is, checking if the HTML content of a field is
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Scott Rossi sc...@tactilemedia.com 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:
html
body
/body
/html
True. But doesn't p/p mean that you have 1
Trevor,
When a browser renders p/p 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
Using html was an example. If you have p/p 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
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,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Scott Rossi sc...@tactilemedia.com wrote:
Using html was an example. If you have p/p 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
I keep having this niggling feeling that the devs did this for some good
reason, and that if empty text didn’t correspond to p/p 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
42 matches
Mail list logo
