Is it possible to submit two forms at a time

wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I need a small clarification in submitting the forms, Ur
> suggestions please.
>
> In a page I have two form and also two submit butons.
>
>
> (ie)
>
> <form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
> <input type="text" name="myform_name" >
> <input type="text" name="myform_id" >
> <input type="text" name="myform_no" >
> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
> </form>
>
> <form name="myform1" action="test.php" >
> <input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
> <input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
> <input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
> </form>
>
> Now is it possible to submit all the elements from the two form when I
> click any one of the submit button.
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Moses
>

Moses,

As others have said, you can do it with javascript, but many users have
javascript disabled.

However, you have the same target on both forms - you don't need two
forms. You can do it with:

<form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
<input type="text" name="myform_name" >
<input type="text" name="myform_id" >
<input type="text" name="myform_no" >
<input type="submit" name="Submit" value="First Button" />

<input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
<input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
<input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
<input type="submit" name="Submit" value="Second Button" />
</form>

Notice you didn't have a name attribute for your submit button. I added
one so you can fetch the results. Now, in test.php, $_POST['Submit']
will contain "First Button" or "Second Button" and all fields will be
filled in. No javascript needed.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I need a small clarification in submitting the forms, Ur
> suggestions please.
>
> In a page I have two form and also two submit butons.
>
>
> (ie)
>
> <form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
> <input type="text" name="myform_name" >
> <input type="text" name="myform_id" >
> <input type="text" name="myform_no" >
> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
> </form>
>
> <form name="myform1" action="test.php" >
> <input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
> <input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
> <input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
> </form>
>
> Now is it possible to submit all the elements from the two form when I
> click any one of the submit button.
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Moses

Hi,

Yes, but not with PHP.
PHP has NO KNOWLEDGE what is going on in the browser. It only sends the
html/javascript/images/whatever the browser displays.

So try Javascript, that language lives in a browser.
Note however that some people choose to have Javascript disabled in their
browser.

If you go Javascript, just add a bunch of hidden fields in both forms, and
fill them before submitting with the values from the other form.
If you need more help: comp.lang.javascript, an active group.

Regards,
Erwin Moller
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>As others have said, you can do it with javascript, but many users have
>javascript disabled.

Is that your opinion, or your experience? Seriously, I am curious to know
your basis for saying this, because my experience is quite the opposite:
the vast majority of users run with Javascript enabled, and the typical web
surfing experience is severly reduce without it.
--
Tim Roberts, timr.DeleteThis@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:13:14 +0100, Tim Roberts wrote:

> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> As others have said, you can do it with javascript, but many users have
>> javascript disabled.
>
> Is that your opinion, or your experience? Seriously, I am curious to
> know
> your basis for saying this, because my experience is quite the opposite:
> the vast majority of users run with Javascript enabled, and the typical
> web
> surfing experience is severly reduce without it.

It all depends on you audience offcourse. A corporate for mainly business
to business communication will have a lot more users with javascript
turned off, no Flash etc, while a you typical community website for teens
or something will have the vast majority with the whole shebang enabled.
The question wether that 'the typical web surfing experience is severly
reduced without it' all depends on the surfer, there is no 'typical'
internet user. Usually, when it does break, it because of bad design, not
because it's impossible to get the functionality without it.

Fact is, that everything the users sees must work in one way or another.
The users can see the forms without javascript, so they should be able to
use them without javascript too. There's no problem in added functionality
for the people with javascript, often you can skip a few forms, procide
better feedback etc. It's all about a gracefull degrade.

Then again, for this particular example, maybe the OP should state _why_
the 2 forms are needed. It's hardly ever necessary to use 2 forms like
this that have to be submitted as one. Could be that's more a HTML/design
question though.
--
Rik Wasmus
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

Tim Roberts wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> As others have said, you can do it with javascript, but many users have
>> javascript disabled.
>
> Is that your opinion, or your experience? Seriously, I am curious to know
> your basis for saying this, because my experience is quite the opposite:
> the vast majority of users run with Javascript enabled, and the typical web
> surfing experience is severly reduce without it.

Tim,

It's my experience.

As Rik indicated, it depends on the audience. But more and more people
are running with it turned off every day, mainly because a few
webmasters misuse it so much (i.e. creating popups).

Any website which uses javascript should have a non-javascript solution,
also. I admit it's not always possible - but then you should be using
the <NOSCRIPT> tag - and in this case not show the form.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex DeleteThis @attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

Hi Everybody,

Than you very much for all your replys,

In this project we have used javascript for lot of things, so I
am sure the user should enable javascript .

So I have decided to go with javascript.

But I have understood that we should not rely on javascript and
also trying to avoid having more than one form in the future.

Once again thank you every body.


Regards
Moses
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

kirjoitti:
> Hi All,
>
> I need a small clarification in submitting the forms, Ur
> suggestions please.
>
> In a page I have two form and also two submit butons.
>
>
> (ie)
>
> <form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
> <input type="text" name="myform_name" >
> <input type="text" name="myform_id" >
> <input type="text" name="myform_no" >
> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
> </form>
>
> <form name="myform1" action="test.php" >
> <input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
> <input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
> <input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
> </form>
>
> Now is it possible to submit all the elements from the two form when I
> click any one of the submit button.

I see absolutely no reason for having two forms. You want to post all
values but possibly handle different actions based on which button was
clcikced, so a clean, non-javascript solution would be just put them all
in the same form and test at server-side which button was clicked if it
matters.

<form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
<input type="text" name="myform_name" >
<input type="text" name="myform_id" >
<input type="text" name="myform_no" >
<input type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit" />
<br />
<input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
<input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
<input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
<input type="submit" name="submit1" value="Submit" />
</form>

test.php:

if(isset($_POST['submit'])){

// Handle the case where the first button was clicked

}

if(isset($_POST['submit1'])){

// Handle the case where the second button was clicked

}

if(sizeof($_POST)){

// Handle the case where it doesn't matter what was clicked.

}

If you do it like this, then it's accessible for them javascriptless
folk too. Ignorance is not a reason to create obstacles.

--
"En ole paha ihminen, mutta omenat ovat elinkeinoni." -Perttu Sirviö
spam.DeleteThis@outolempi.net | Gedoon-S @ IRCnet | rot13(xvzzb@bhgbyrzcv.arg)
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

Kimmo Laine kirjoitti:
> kirjoitti:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I need a small clarification in submitting the forms, Ur
>> suggestions please.
>>
>> In a page I have two form and also two submit butons.
>>
>>
>> (ie)
>>
>> <form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
>> <input type="text" name="myform_name" >
>> <input type="text" name="myform_id" >
>> <input type="text" name="myform_no" >
>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>> </form>
>>
>> <form name="myform1" action="test.php" >
>> <input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
>> <input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
>> <input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>> </form>
>>

Okay, now I noticed Jerry already replied the almost-same answer already
and here I'm repeating it. What a silly bunt. Well at least the correct
answer was already given. I just read the couple of first answers and
every time someone recommends a javascript "solution" I jump to the roof.

--
"En ole paha ihminen, mutta omenat ovat elinkeinoni." -Perttu Sirviö
spam.DeleteThis@outolempi.net | Gedoon-S @ IRCnet | rot13(xvzzb@bhgbyrzcv.arg)
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

Kimmo Laine wrote:
> Kimmo Laine kirjoitti:
>> kirjoitti:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I need a small clarification in submitting the forms, Ur
>>> suggestions please.
>>>
>>> In a page I have two form and also two submit butons.
>>>
>>>
>>> (ie)
>>>
>>> <form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform_name" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform_id" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform_no" >
>>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>>> </form>
>>>
>>> <form name="myform1" action="test.php" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
>>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>>> </form>
>>>
>
> Okay, now I noticed Jerry already replied the almost-same answer already
> and here I'm repeating it. What a silly bunt. Well at least the correct
> answer was already given. I just read the couple of first answers and
> every time someone recommends a javascript "solution" I jump to the
> roof.
>

Hey, Kimmo, you were a minute ahead of me in posting!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.RemoveThis@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

Kimmo Laine wrote:

> Kimmo Laine kirjoitti:
>> kirjoitti:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I need a small clarification in submitting the forms, Ur
>>> suggestions please.
>>>
>>> In a page I have two form and also two submit butons.
>>>
>>>
>>> (ie)
>>>
>>> <form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform_name" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform_id" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform_no" >
>>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>>> </form>
>>>
>>> <form name="myform1" action="test.php" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
>>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>>> </form>
>>>
>
> Okay, now I noticed Jerry already replied the almost-same answer already
> and here I'm repeating it. What a silly bunt. Well at least the correct
> answer was already given. I just read the couple of first answers and
> every time someone recommends a javascript "solution" I jump to the roof.
>

Hi Kimmo,

-- The Javascript 'solution' poster speaking.

Kimmo, I would really like to see your solution to the original problem (2
forms!) without using Javascript.
It is simply not possible.
Allthough I also wonder why th OP wants 2 forms. As far as I can judge 1
form will do just fine, but I don't know the problem at hand (and neither
do you!).

In defense for JavaScript: My *personal experience* is that a lot of my
customers prefer the sexy behaviour a site gets with javascript above
better compatibility (= JS disabled).
Also: It takes a lot more developmenttime in realworld situation to make a
'double site': one for JS enabled, one for disabled. And not all want to
pay for that, and settle for JS only site.
I simple say at the homepage/entrancepage that JS must be enabled to use the
site.
Of course, a website that handles both situations right is better than one
that demands JS.

An example (a thing I am working on right now):
I need a geograpical map of some area with lots of regions in it.
The user clicks on one region and I must select the neighbouring regions:
they light up.
Another selectbox defines how deep the neighbours are found (eg 0, 1, 2,
etc).
If I must deliver that piece without JS, I need a roundrobin to the server
for each click, rebuild the map with the right regions lighted up: quite
slow and it will result in a sluggish enduserexperience.
This is just an example of realworld situations I do want to program/deliver
without JS.

One a sidenote: What is so bad about demanding JS for your site? People
demand IE, Flash, Java, Acrobat Reader, etc to use their sites.
I have no problems with it. :-/

just my 2 cent.

Regards,
Erwin Moller
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

Erwin Moller wrote:
> Kimmo Laine wrote:
>
>> Kimmo Laine kirjoitti:
>>> kirjoitti:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I need a small clarification in submitting the forms, Ur
>>>> suggestions please.
>>>>
>>>> In a page I have two form and also two submit butons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (ie)
>>>>
>>>> <form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform_name" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform_id" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform_no" >
>>>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>>>> </form>
>>>>
>>>> <form name="myform1" action="test.php" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
>>>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>>>> </form>
>>>>
>> Okay, now I noticed Jerry already replied the almost-same answer already
>> and here I'm repeating it. What a silly bunt. Well at least the correct
>> answer was already given. I just read the couple of first answers and
>> every time someone recommends a javascript "solution" I jump to the roof.
>>
>
> Hi Kimmo,
>
> -- The Javascript 'solution' poster speaking.
>
> Kimmo, I would really like to see your solution to the original problem (2
> forms!) without using Javascript.
> It is simply not possible.
> Allthough I also wonder why th OP wants 2 forms. As far as I can judge 1
> form will do just fine, but I don't know the problem at hand (and neither
> do you!).
>
> In defense for JavaScript: My *personal experience* is that a lot of my
> customers prefer the sexy behaviour a site gets with javascript above
> better compatibility (= JS disabled).
> Also: It takes a lot more developmenttime in realworld situation to make a
> 'double site': one for JS enabled, one for disabled. And not all want to
> pay for that, and settle for JS only site.

You don't need to have two sites. JS should enhance a page - but not be
required to use it.

> I simple say at the homepage/entrancepage that JS must be enabled to use the
> site.
> Of course, a website that handles both situations right is better than one
> that demands JS.
>

And therein lies the problem. How many people leave after seeing your
home page without going any further? Every one of them who run with JS
turned off. So obviously, since you only see those who have javascript
disabled, your conclusion is that most people have JS enabled.

> An example (a thing I am working on right now):
> I need a geograpical map of some area with lots of regions in it.
> The user clicks on one region and I must select the neighbouring regions:
> they light up.
> Another selectbox defines how deep the neighbours are found (eg 0, 1, 2,
> etc).
> If I must deliver that piece without JS, I need a roundrobin to the server
> for each click, rebuild the map with the right regions lighted up: quite
> slow and it will result in a sluggish enduserexperience.
> This is just an example of realworld situations I do want to program/deliver
> without JS.
>

Yes, it requires a request to the server. but it should not be "slow"
and should not result in a sluggish end user experience".

> One a sidenote: What is so bad about demanding JS for your site? People
> demand IE, Flash, Java, Acrobat Reader, etc to use their sites.
> I have no problems with it. :-/
>

Because you lose customers that way. Every one who surfs with
javascript turned off. And you never see them go.

> just my 2 cent.
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.RemoveThis@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

<snip>
>> Hi Kimmo,
>>
>> -- The Javascript 'solution' poster speaking.
>>
>> Kimmo, I would really like to see your solution to the original problem
>> (2 forms!) without using Javascript.
>> It is simply not possible.
>> Allthough I also wonder why th OP wants 2 forms. As far as I can judge 1
>> form will do just fine, but I don't know the problem at hand (and neither
>> do you!).
>>
>> In defense for JavaScript: My *personal experience* is that a lot of my
>> customers prefer the sexy behaviour a site gets with javascript above
>> better compatibility (= JS disabled).
>> Also: It takes a lot more developmenttime in realworld situation to make
>> a 'double site': one for JS enabled, one for disabled. And not all want
>> to pay for that, and settle for JS only site.
>
> You don't need to have two sites. JS should enhance a page - but not be
> required to use it.

Hi Jerry,

Of course you don't need 2 seperate sites.
I know that. I I think you know I know.
That is why I wrote 'double site' between the ''.
My point is simply that making sites work in both situations can take a lot
more effort in some situations.
And I am not refering to trivial checks like somebody filled in a certain
field in a form. That is a breeze of course, and should be checked
serverside anyway.


>
>> I simple say at the homepage/entrancepage that JS must be enabled to use
>> the site.
>> Of course, a website that handles both situations right is better than
>> one that demands JS.
>>
>
> And therein lies the problem. How many people leave after seeing your
> home page without going any further? Every one of them who run with JS
> turned off. So obviously, since you only see those who have javascript
> disabled, your conclusion is that most people have JS enabled.

???
Where did I say I concluded that most people have JS enabled based on my
visitors? You put words in my mouth/writing.

I DO think that by the way, I just didn't say it. Maybe you are confusing
posters.

>
>> An example (a thing I am working on right now):
>> I need a geograpical map of some area with lots of regions in it.
>> The user clicks on one region and I must select the neighbouring regions:
>> they light up.
>> Another selectbox defines how deep the neighbours are found (eg 0, 1, 2,
>> etc).
>> If I must deliver that piece without JS, I need a roundrobin to the
>> server for each click, rebuild the map with the right regions lighted up:
>> quite slow and it will result in a sluggish enduserexperience.
>> This is just an example of realworld situations I do want to
>> program/deliver without JS.
>>
>
> Yes, it requires a request to the server. but it should not be "slow"
> and should not result in a sluggish end user experience".

Not?
Not if the map exists of 200+ images that the browser has to layout every
time after every click?
Of course that will be sluggish compared to Javascript switching a few
images, and you know that just as well as I do. Or I am misjudging your
competence completely.


>
>> One a sidenote: What is so bad about demanding JS for your site? People
>> demand IE, Flash, Java, Acrobat Reader, etc to use their sites.
>> I have no problems with it. :-/
>>
>
> Because you lose customers that way. Every one who surfs with
> javascript turned off. And you never see them go.

Loose customers?
I loose MY customers if I present them bills for fully compatible sites
(JS/no JS, Java/No Java, Flash/no Flash, etc).

Well Jerry, as I said: I don't mind making apps 100% non-JS compatible. But
I must raise my bill because it results in more coding/thinking and in some
situations a lot of double work.
Of course I prefer a site that handles both situations....
And the situation flas/no flash.
And the situation Java/no Java.
Go on and do the math. My bills will grow.

I think you are describing some 'ideal world' solution, while I tried to
describe real world situations that run on tight budgets.
I do not know how you are employed, but I run my own business and simply do
not have the luxery to make perfect apps day-in-day-out, allthough I would
like that.

And for clearity's sake: I DO agree that sites that handle JS and no-JS are
better.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

>
>> just my 2 cent.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Erwin Moller
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time 

Erwin Moller wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> In defense for JavaScript: My *personal experience* is that a lot of my
>>> customers prefer the sexy behaviour a site gets with javascript above
>>> better compatibility (= JS disabled).
>>> Also: It takes a lot more developmenttime in realworld situation to make
>>> a 'double site': one for JS enabled, one for disabled. And not all want
>>> to pay for that, and settle for JS only site.
>> You don't need to have two sites. JS should enhance a page - but not be
>> required to use it.
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> Of course you don't need 2 seperate sites.
> I know that. I I think you know I know.
> That is why I wrote 'double site' between the ''.
> My point is simply that making sites work in both situations can take a lot
> more effort in some situations.
> And I am not refering to trivial checks like somebody filled in a certain
> field in a form. That is a breeze of course, and should be checked
> serverside anyway.
>

But a lot of people would take "double site" to mean two separate copies
of each page - one with JS enabled and one without.

>
>>> I simple say at the homepage/entrancepage that JS must be enabled to use
>>> the site.
>>> Of course, a website that handles both situations right is better than
>>> one that demands JS.
>>>
>> And therein lies the problem. How many people leave after seeing your
>> home page without going any further? Every one of them who run with JS
>> turned off. So obviously, since you only see those who have javascript
>> disabled, your conclusion is that most people have JS enabled.
>
> ???
> Where did I say I concluded that most people have JS enabled based on my
> visitors? You put words in my mouth/writing.
>
> I DO think that by the way, I just didn't say it. Maybe you are confusing
> posters.
>

No, you didn't state it here. But it's a logical conclusion from other
comments you've made and the fact you don't push it with your customers.
But it's also an obvious conclusion to make when you never see the
non-JS users.

There isn't anything wrong with this opinion, Erwin. And for your
customer base it may be 100% correct. But do you think it might also be
based on incomplete information?

>>> An example (a thing I am working on right now):
>>> I need a geograpical map of some area with lots of regions in it.
>>> The user clicks on one region and I must select the neighbouring regions:
>>> they light up.
>>> Another selectbox defines how deep the neighbours are found (eg 0, 1, 2,
>>> etc).
>>> If I must deliver that piece without JS, I need a roundrobin to the
>>> server for each click, rebuild the map with the right regions lighted up:
>>> quite slow and it will result in a sluggish enduserexperience.
>>> This is just an example of realworld situations I do want to
>>> program/deliver without JS.
>>>
>> Yes, it requires a request to the server. but it should not be "slow"
>> and should not result in a sluggish end user experience".
>
> Not?
> Not if the map exists of 200+ images that the browser has to layout every
> time after every click?
> Of course that will be sluggish compared to Javascript switching a few
> images, and you know that just as well as I do. Or I am misjudging your
> competence completely.
>

First of all, most of those images would already be cached by the
browser and wouldn't need to be fetched from the server.

But it also means you need to send two copies of every image for the JS
version, whether or not you'll even need them (and chances are you won't
need all of them - maybe not even a large percentage of the copies).

So your first page is going to be twice as slow loading because it has
to load all of those images which probably won't be used.

So a good compromise in this case would be to have JS load the copies
and handle the image switches. And if JS isn't active, don't load the
extra copies and make the trip to the server.

That way JS is enhancing the experience, but the experience doesn't
require JS.

>
>>> One a sidenote: What is so bad about demanding JS for your site? People
>>> demand IE, Flash, Java, Acrobat Reader, etc to use their sites.
>>> I have no problems with it. :-/
>>>
>> Because you lose customers that way. Every one who surfs with
>> javascript turned off. And you never see them go.
>
> Loose customers?
> I loose MY customers if I present them bills for fully compatible sites
> (JS/no JS, Java/No Java, Flash/no Flash, etc).
>

I'm talking about THEIR customers. I don't lose customers because I can
show them how not being compatible would lose them money. Most are
quite happy to pay for non-JS versions when they understand requiring JS
can cost them more in lost sales than the cost of implementing the solution.

> Well Jerry, as I said: I don't mind making apps 100% non-JS compatible. But
> I must raise my bill because it results in more coding/thinking and in some
> situations a lot of double work.
> Of course I prefer a site that handles both situations....
> And the situation flas/no flash.
> And the situation Java/no Java.
> Go on and do the math. My bills will grow.
>
> I think you are describing some 'ideal world' solution, while I tried to
> describe real world situations that run on tight budgets.
> I do not know how you are employed, but I run my own business and simply do
> not have the luxery to make perfect apps day-in-day-out, allthough I would
> like that.
>

No, not "ideal world". The way I work. I run my own business, also
(have for over 16 years, now). I don't make 'perfect' apps. But at the
same time I show my customers the real world. And BTW - I don't do
flash at all - too "graphically challenged" . But I have someone who
can do the flash if I need it. And I don't do client-side Java unless
there is a very good reason for it. Most sites obviously don't need it.

In an "ideal world" you could require JS/Flash/Java and anything else
and not lose any potential customers. In the "real world", though,
doing any of these will lose you potential customers. The only question
is which will cost you more money in the long run - the loss of
customers by requiring these technologies, or the cost of implementing
non-JS/Java/Flash version.

It's a trade-off, and details will be different for each site. But for
my customers the extra up front cost would be recovered by just a few
sales.


> And for clearity's sake: I DO agree that sites that handle JS and no-JS are
> better.
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
>
>>> just my 2 cent.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Erwin Moller
>>
>

Another example here. I'm working on a site with dropdowns for country
and state/province. When the country changes, the state/province
contents change (or it is disabled).

Obviously this requires javascript and there's no way to do it with
javascript disabled. So I set it up such that all entries are placed in
the state/province block. When JS is enabled, it replaces the content
with an accurate list (or disables it completely). But if JS is
disabled, the state/province block shows all entries. Either way there
needs to be further validation server side. But again, JS "enhances the
experience".

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.RemoveThis@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Is it possible to submit two forms at a time