Forums
This topic is locked
firefox, Netscape fine - IE7 NOT!
Posted 30 Nov 2007 13:48:18
1
has voted
30 Nov 2007 13:48:18 Ian Flockhart posted:
Hi All,I've been using a Javascript to allow users of a form to add another line for input. Everything works well in Firefox, Netscape and Opera, but IE7 breaks the form. Debug appears to be saying that problem is in the interpretation of the Javascript. Research suggests that it ain't gonna work whatever I do because of the way the IE7 handles this particular code. The Javascript guys have tried very hard to sort this out for me but it won't play, so I'm now trying to find out if it can be done in HTML.
At the bottom of the form is a control to 'Add another response', which then appears below the Findings box and allows the user to add another complete line to add further details.
Firefox, Netscape and Opera all display the control in the correct location, under the FINDINGS box, and respond to it, correctly. IE7 displays the control on the left above Body Part (not as bad as it sounds, its for veterinary surgeons) and does not generate a new line, instead it throws up a runtime error.
Can anyone advise on a way of repeating a form element in this way without the use of Javascript please.
The form is at: www.webpedlar.co.uk/form_test/radiology_request.htm
Thanks Guys (and Gals of course)
Replies
Replied 02 Dec 2007 23:44:53
02 Dec 2007 23:44:53 Alan C replied:
Hi
IE is a real pain
How about having a php script that generates another table row at the bottom, you could have a button, like a submit, but with different text that said something like 'add another row' then you would have to sort out how many lines you received.
Come to think of it you could save the number of extra items in a session variable then you would know how many to look for
Hope that helps
IE is a real pain
How about having a php script that generates another table row at the bottom, you could have a button, like a submit, but with different text that said something like 'add another row' then you would have to sort out how many lines you received.
Come to think of it you could save the number of extra items in a session variable then you would know how many to look for
Hope that helps
Replied 03 Dec 2007 00:13:01
03 Dec 2007 00:13:01 Ian Flockhart replied:
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the help. As it happens this problem was solved, just this morning. A guy (Zoltankis) pointed out (on webdeveloper.com) that there was an error in the html. Firefox and Netscape took it in their stride, but IE bombed.
The code concerned is:
<pre id=code><font face=courier size=2 id=code><td><textarea name="findings" cols="45" rows="3" id="findings"></textarea> </td>
<a href="#" id="body_part_select" class="duplicateLink"></a>
<!--wf_Relatives1-wfDL -->
</tr>
corrected version:
<td><textarea name="findings" cols="45" rows="3" id="findings"></textarea>
<a href="#" id="body_part_select" class="duplicateLink"></a></td>
<!--wf_Relatives1-wfDL -->
</tr>
*************** </font id=code></pre id=code>
I had inserted that particular bit of code myself (rather than using Dreamweaver's own insert routine) and got it wrong. If I'd done a 'validate' on the W3C site it would have shown up as being incorrect code. Ho-Hum!
Thanks,
Ian
Thanks for the help. As it happens this problem was solved, just this morning. A guy (Zoltankis) pointed out (on webdeveloper.com) that there was an error in the html. Firefox and Netscape took it in their stride, but IE bombed.
The code concerned is:
<pre id=code><font face=courier size=2 id=code><td><textarea name="findings" cols="45" rows="3" id="findings"></textarea> </td>
<a href="#" id="body_part_select" class="duplicateLink"></a>
<!--wf_Relatives1-wfDL -->
</tr>
corrected version:
<td><textarea name="findings" cols="45" rows="3" id="findings"></textarea>
<a href="#" id="body_part_select" class="duplicateLink"></a></td>
<!--wf_Relatives1-wfDL -->
</tr>
*************** </font id=code></pre id=code>
I had inserted that particular bit of code myself (rather than using Dreamweaver's own insert routine) and got it wrong. If I'd done a 'validate' on the W3C site it would have shown up as being incorrect code. Ho-Hum!
Thanks,
Ian