absolute pos. layer and css inline/and external

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by se, Aug 15, 2010.

  1. se

    se Guest

    I have a hidden absolute pos. div to popup with some
    information. Just to find out that javascript requires me to
    have the styles inline.
    There must be a way to tell javascript to look for the
    styles externally/ or on the parent page.
    How does this look like?.
    Thanks!
    /se
     
    se, Aug 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Am 2010-08-15 07:42, se meinte:
    > I have a hidden absolute pos. div to popup with some
    > information. Just to find out that javascript requires me to
    > have the styles inline. There must be a way to tell javascript to look
    > for the
    > styles externally/ or on the parent page.


    Huh? What parent page? What inline/external "styles"?

    > How does this look like?.


    Depends.
    element.style.display = "none" => element.style.display = ""
    element.style.left = "-10000px" => element.style.left = "0px"
    element.className = "hidden" => element.className = "shown"
    ....

    Gregor

    --
    http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com
     
    Gregor Kofler, Aug 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 15/08/10 06:42, se wrote:
    > I have a hidden absolute pos. div to popup with some
    > information. Just to find out that javascript requires me to
    > have the styles inline. There must be a way to tell javascript to look
    > for the
    > styles externally/ or on the parent page.
    > How does this look like?.
    > Thanks!


    Please include a link to your page so we can see what you're doing and
    maybe work out what's wrong with it.

    Rgds

    Denis McMahon
     
    Denis McMahon, Aug 15, 2010
    #3
  4. se

    se Guest

    "Denis McMahon" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:4c6811e3$0$5802$...
    > On 15/08/10 06:42, se wrote:
    >> I have a hidden absolute pos. div to popup with some
    >> information. Just to find out that javascript requires me to
    >> have the styles inline. There must be a way to tell javascript to look
    >> for the
    >> styles externally/ or on the parent page.
    >> How does this look like?.
    >> Thanks!

    >
    > Please include a link to your page so we can see what you're doing and
    > maybe work out what's wrong with it.
    >
    > Rgds
    >
    > Denis McMahon


    Nothing wrong with my pages. Like I said, the styles are placed in
    the absolute position div-layer, and so it works correctly when
    getting a
    document.getElementId("nameofdivlayerID").style.visibility="visible";
    no problem in that case.
    The hidden layer:
    <div id="nameofdivlayerID" style="visibility:hidden;
    position:absolute; z-index:10; left: 100px; top:50px; ----" >
    ----------
    ----------
    </div>
    I want the styles in a stylesheet or in the document
    head. Doing so, the script stop working. -The layer stay hidden.
    Having all those styles inline really looks messy.
    If you can't do without having me to post my site here, then
    stop thinking in my problem. If you've been participating on
    newsgroups for couple of years or so, you got to know what happens
    with a site posting it's url there. The site is immidiately picked
    up by spambots and ends up anywhere. Just like this post here
    perhaps ends up on egg-cafe.
    Do you think that's raising page-rank having ones url spread around
    on places that's not related to the page content of the site.
    On the contrary!.
    /se
     
    se, Aug 15, 2010
    #4
  5. Am 2010-08-15 20:24, se meinte:

    > Nothing wrong with my pages. Like I said, the styles are placed in
    > the absolute position div-layer, and so it works correctly when
    > getting a
    > document.getElementId("nameofdivlayerID").style.visibility="visible";
    > no problem in that case.
    > The hidden layer:
    > <div id="nameofdivlayerID" style="visibility:hidden;
    > position:absolute; z-index:10; left: 100px; top:50px; ----" >
    > ----------
    > ----------
    > </div>
    > I want the styles in a stylesheet or in the document
    > head. Doing so, the script stop working. -The layer stay hidden.
    > Having all those styles inline really looks messy.


    Indeed.

    > If you can't do without having me to post my site here, then
    > stop thinking in my problem.


    Given your problem description, there's nothing really to think about yet.

    > If you've been participating on
    > newsgroups for couple of years or so, you got to know what happens
    > with a site posting it's url there.


    What? I frequently place my webpage in the sig.

    > The site is immidiately picked
    > up by spambots and ends up anywhere.


    Even worse: It might end up in the *WORLD WIDE WEB*. Seriously, what's
    the problem with spambots "picking up" my website or not? Isn't the idea
    to make ones webpage as popular as possible (at least most of the time).
    Do have to relearn what I know or think to know about the WWW?

    > Just like this post here perhaps ends up on egg-cafe.


    Given the quality of your post - good that you chose a nym.

    > Do you think that's raising page-rank having ones url spread around
    > on places that's not related to the page content of the site.
    > On the contrary!.


    I have read this above sentence several times - it still eludes me, what
    you wanted to say.

    Gregor (note: that's my real name, and the website below is a real URI,
    and the domain is owned by me, and I don't give a damn, where it ends up)


    --
    http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com
     
    Gregor Kofler, Aug 15, 2010
    #5
  6. se

    se Guest

    "Gregor Kofler" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:i49i84$4p5$...
    > Am 2010-08-15 20:24, se meinte:
    >
    >> Nothing wrong with my pages. Like I said, the styles are placed in
    >> the absolute position div-layer, and so it works correctly when
    >> getting a
    >> document.getElementId("nameofdivlayerID").style.visibility="visible";
    >> no problem in that case.
    >> The hidden layer:
    >> <div id="nameofdivlayerID" style="visibility:hidden;
    >> position:absolute; z-index:10; left: 100px; top:50px; ----" >
    >> ----------
    >> ----------
    >> </div>
    >> I want the styles in a stylesheet or in the document
    >> head. Doing so, the script stop working. -The layer stay hidden.
    >> Having all those styles inline really looks messy.

    >
    > Indeed.
    >
    >> If you can't do without having me to post my site here, then
    >> stop thinking in my problem.

    >
    > Given your problem description, there's nothing really to think about yet.
    >
    >> If you've been participating on
    >> newsgroups for couple of years or so, you got to know what happens
    >> with a site posting it's url there.

    >
    > What? I frequently place my webpage in the sig.
    >
    > > The site is immidiately picked
    >> up by spambots and ends up anywhere.

    >
    > Even worse: It might end up in the *WORLD WIDE WEB*. Seriously, what's the
    > problem with spambots "picking up" my website or not? Isn't the idea to
    > make ones webpage as popular as possible (at least most of the time). Do
    > have to relearn what I know or think to know about the WWW?
    >
    >> Just like this post here perhaps ends up on egg-cafe.

    >
    > Given the quality of your post - good that you chose a nym.
    >
    >> Do you think that's raising page-rank having ones url spread around
    >> on places that's not related to the page content of the site.
    >> On the contrary!.

    >
    > I have read this above sentence several times - it still eludes me, what
    > you wanted to say.
    >
    > Gregor (note: that's my real name, and the website below is a real URI,
    > and the domain is owned by me, and I don't give a damn, where it ends up)
    >
    >
    > --
    > http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com


    You're right, I ended up on *WORLD WIDE WEB*. but with yours.
    Here's the result testing your page. This test possibly explains why
    we get no answers here other than *objections*
    Refereing also to the "me" thread about a dozen of lines from this post;
    I agree with:

    > (This "how do I ?", "You don't." pattern in newsgroups is getting tiring;
    > if you want to help someone, help them; if you just want to express your
    > disdain for other people, start a blog or something.)


    > Marc.


    Here's the test of yours. You stated above "don't care"
    Does this eludes you:

    W3C CSS Validator results for http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com/ (CSS level 2.1)
    Sorry! We found the following errors (26)
     
    se, Aug 15, 2010
    #6
  7. Am 2010-08-15 23:35, se meinte:

    >> --
    >> http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com

    >
    > You're right, I ended up on *WORLD WIDE WEB*. but with yours.
    > Here's the result testing your page. This test possibly explains why
    > we get no answers here other than *objections*
    > Refereing also to the "me" thread about a dozen of lines from this post;
    > I agree with:
    >
    >> (This "how do I ?", "You don't." pattern in newsgroups is getting
    >> tiring; if you want to help someone, help them; if you just want to
    >> express your disdain for other people, start a blog or something.)


    This is usenet, not a helpdesk. (And with your problem "description" a
    psychic might come in handy.)

    > Marc.
    >
    > Here's the test of yours. You stated above "don't care"
    > Does this eludes you:


    Elude me what?

    > W3C CSS Validator results for http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com/ (CSS level 2.1)
    > Sorry! We found the following errors (26)


    And your point is? That my CSS sports level 2.1 errors? Indeed, since
    these are CSS3 and/or proprietary properties like opacity or rgba()
    values. It "degrades gracefully" - IE users have to live without rounded
    corners.

    Gregor


    --
    http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com
     
    Gregor Kofler, Aug 15, 2010
    #7
  8. se

    se Guest

    Problem solved.
    I had a syntax error. I wrote this:

    if (thisdoc.style.visibility=="hidden")
    { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}

    Should be:

    if (thisdoc.style.visibility="hidden")
    { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}

    /se
     
    se, Aug 15, 2010
    #8
  9. se

    rf Guest

    "se" <se@onfakeplace&.atbigfix> wrote in message
    news:i49qji$q4u$-september.org...
    > Problem solved.
    > I had a syntax error. I wrote this:
    >
    > if (thisdoc.style.visibility=="hidden")
    > { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}
    >
    > Should be:
    >
    > if (thisdoc.style.visibility="hidden")
    > { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}


    No, it probably should not. I think you are grasping at straws.

    Why would you want an *assignment* inside that if statement? Surely a
    logical comparison is more advisable.
     
    rf, Aug 16, 2010
    #9
  10. Am 2010-08-16 00:44, se meinte:
    > Problem solved.
    > I had a syntax error. I wrote this:
    >
    > if (thisdoc.style.visibility=="hidden")
    > { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}
    >
    > Should be:
    >
    > if (thisdoc.style.visibility="hidden")
    > { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}


    Definitely not. In the latter case the condition always evaluates to
    true, and visibility will always be set to visible.
    (You have not the slightest clue of JS, have you?)

    Gregor


    --
    http://www.gregorkofler.com
     
    Gregor Kofler, Aug 16, 2010
    #10
  11. se

    se Guest

    "Gregor Kofler" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:i4ap23$f93$...
    > Am 2010-08-16 00:44, se meinte:
    >> Problem solved.
    >> I had a syntax error. I wrote this:
    >>
    >> if (thisdoc.style.visibility=="hidden")
    >> { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}
    >>
    >> Should be:
    >>
    >> if (thisdoc.style.visibility="hidden")
    >> { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}

    >
    > Definitely not. In the latter case the condition always evaluates to true,
    > and visibility will always be set to visible.
    > (You have not the slightest clue of JS, have you?)
    >
    > Gregor
    >
    >
    > --
    > http://www.gregorkofler.com


    Why do you think people's asking for help here. Ask yourself too?.
    In this case, anyway, I accidentedly changed the two. Look at
    the same I posted above. Here the "if" clause uses the double equal
    sign.
    The code below here is working perfectly as long as all the styles
    are in the container div on the hidden layer. Transfering those styles
    to the document head, it stops working.
    If you don't have anything useable to say, Gregor, then piss off.
    And get you site to validate. There's other easy methodes for
    making round corners. Do you have trouble using graphics?.
    Until browsers can handle css3 stick to the old method.
    TwentySix validation errors is far too much. And is not even
    gracefull in itself.

    var thisdoc;
    var cooLX;
    document.onmouseup = mouseup;
    function Dragg(e){
    if (e == null) { e = window.event;}
    var tar = (typeof( window.event ) != "undefined" ) ? e.srcElement :
    e.target;
    if (tar.id=="titlebar")
    {
    mouseover=true;
    curX=parseInt(thisdoc.style.left);
    curY=parseInt(thisdoc.style.top);
    offsetx=e.clientX;
    offsety=e.clientY;
    document.onmousemove=drg;
    return false;
    }
    else { return false; }
    }
    function drg(e){
    if (e == null) { e = window.event;}
    var coorl=curX+e.clientX-offsetx;
    var coort=curY+e.clientY-offsety;
    if (coorl<0){coorl=0;}
    if (coort<0) {coort=0;}
    thisdoc.style.left = coorl + "px";
    thisdoc.style.top = coort + "px";
    return false;
    }
    function mouseup(e)
    {
    document.onmousemove=null;
    }
    function HideLayer(){
    if (thisdoc.style.visibility == "visible")
    {
    thisdoc.style.visibility = "hidden";
    }}
    function ShowLayer(){
    thisdoc=document.getElementById("layer10");
    if (thisdoc.style.visibility == "hidden")
    {
    thisdoc.style.position = "fixed";
    thisdoc.style.visibility = "visible";
    thisdoc.style.left = 30 + "px";
    thisdoc.style.top = 125 + "px";
    }}

    /se
     
    se, Aug 16, 2010
    #11
  12. se

    rf Guest

    "se" <se@onfakeplace&.atbigfix> wrote in message
    news:i4be1p$ktb$-september.org...

    > If you don't have anything useable to say, Gregor, then piss off.


    Nice attitude, not!

    Good luck in getting any further help here, or elsewhere.
     
    rf, Aug 16, 2010
    #12
  13. Am 2010-08-16 15:22, schrieb se:
    >
    > "Gregor Kofler" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    > news:i4ap23$f93$...
    >> Am 2010-08-16 00:44, se meinte:
    >>> Problem solved.
    >>> I had a syntax error. I wrote this:
    >>>
    >>> if (thisdoc.style.visibility=="hidden")
    >>> { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}
    >>>
    >>> Should be:
    >>>
    >>> if (thisdoc.style.visibility="hidden")
    >>> { thisdoc.style.visibility="visible";}

    >>
    >> Definitely not. In the latter case the condition always evaluates to
    >> true, and visibility will always be set to visible.
    >> (You have not the slightest clue of JS, have you?)
    >>
    >> Gregor
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> http://www.gregorkofler.com

    >
    > Why do you think people's asking for help here. Ask yourself too?.
    > In this case, anyway, I accidentedly changed the two. Look at
    > the same I posted above. Here the "if" clause uses the double equal
    > sign.


    You don't make sense. You stated, that your "=="-solution was wrong and
    the correct one was the "-"-version, which it can't be.

    > The code below here is working perfectly as long as all the styles
    > are in the container div on the hidden layer. Transfering those styles
    > to the document head, it stops working.
    > If you don't have anything useable to say, Gregor, then piss off.


    Such harsh words. If you can't form a proper question and confuse usenet
    with helpdesks and don't like the answers, why do you hang out here?

    > And get you site to validate.


    Why? To make you happy? Validators are nice things - if you can
    interpret their results, which you obviously can't. BTW there is JSLint
    - http://www.jslint.com Have you ever tried to your scripts on it? Now
    *this* can be helpful.

    > There's other easy methodes for
    > making round corners. Do you have trouble using graphics?.


    Indeed. Too much work - and in the case of round corners too little payoff.

    > Until browsers can handle css3 stick to the old method.


    Why? The others get angled corners. They never gonna miss the round
    ones, since they don't know that they could be there.

    > TwentySix validation errors is far too much.


    While you are on your crusade: You like to point out the validation
    errors on the webpages of all those "major players" to them. 484 errors
    on amazon.com is really really far too much. Really. And That's just the
    markup. The CSS' have another 35 errors and 266 warnings...

    > And is not even
    > gracefull in itself.


    "Gracefull(sic!) in itself" - what's that supposed to mean? You know the
    concept of graceful degradation?


    Some indentation would help. It's really hard to see (and understand)
    what this piece of code is supposed to do.

    > var thisdoc;
    > var cooLX;
    > document.onmouseup = mouseup;
    > function Dragg(e){
    > if (e == null) { e = window.event;}


    if(e) { ... } suffices.

    > var tar = (typeof( window.event ) != "undefined" ) ? e.srcElement :
    > e.target;


    var tar = e.srcElement || e.target;

    No need for inference.

    > if (tar.id=="titlebar")
    > {
    > mouseover=true;
    > curX=parseInt(thisdoc.style.left);
    > curY=parseInt(thisdoc.style.top);
    > offsetx=e.clientX;
    > offsety=e.clientY;


    No more "var" keywords?

    > document.onmousemove=drg;
    > return false;
    > }
    > else { return false; }
    > }
    > function drg(e){
    > if (e == null) { e = window.event;}


    See above.

    > var coorl=curX+e.clientX-offsetx;
    > var coort=curY+e.clientY-offsety;
    > if (coorl<0){coorl=0;}
    > if (coort<0) {coort=0;}
    > thisdoc.style.left = coorl + "px";
    > thisdoc.style.top = coort + "px";
    > return false;
    > }
    > function mouseup(e)
    > {
    > document.onmousemove=null;
    > }
    > function HideLayer(){
    > if (thisdoc.style.visibility == "visible")
    > {
    > thisdoc.style.visibility = "hidden";
    > }}
    > function ShowLayer(){
    > thisdoc=document.getElementById("layer10");


    Better: Establish the reference once.

    > if (thisdoc.style.visibility == "hidden")
    > {
    > thisdoc.style.position = "fixed";


    Why "fixed"?

    > thisdoc.style.visibility = "visible";
    > thisdoc.style.left = 30 + "px";
    > thisdoc.style.top = 125 + "px";


    Why not just "30px" and "125px"?

    > }}


    Better use a reference of the style object: var s = thisdoc.style;
    s.position = ...;
    s.left = ...;

    I miss a "mousedown" listener - without that, everything is guesswork.

    Gregor
     
    Gregor Kofler, Aug 16, 2010
    #13
  14. se

    se Guest

    Your postings looks obdurate. The same is true for a couple of the
    other regulars, who showed up without anything useable to give.
    Several times you've been answering me and others here without
    anything else but criticism. You're wasting our time. Lots of threads
    here to prove it. You don't know what's the definition of idjits.

    Adventually, my code runs fine in all major browsers with the styles
    inline. At some day, I'll google a solution of having it running with
    the styles "out of inline". It has nothing to do with a mousedown
    listener. Are you a newbie?.

    What a couple of ar**s here.
     
    se, Aug 16, 2010
    #14
  15. Am 2010-08-16 18:36, se meinte:
    > Your postings looks obdurate. The same is true for a couple of the


    Obdurate - nice word...

    > other regulars, who showed up without anything useable to give.


    Understandable, since you never formed a proper (I don't dare to say
    "smart") question, and lack the competence to understand the answers
    trying to be helpful.

    > Several times you've been answering me and others here without anything
    > else but criticism.


    Others - raise yer hands.

    > You're wasting our time.


    Majestic plural!? I would have formulated my answers differently, if I
    had known before.

    > Lots of threads
    > here to prove it. You don't know what's the definition of idjits.


    Idjits? Is this a synonym for "usenet dumbfucks from Denmark"?

    > Adventually, my code runs fine in all major browsers with the styles
    > inline. At some day, I'll google a solution of having it running with
    > the styles "out of inline". It has nothing to do with a mousedown
    > listener.


    Oh, I'm pretty sure that it has nothing to do with a mousedown listener.
    Actually my code runs fine without inline styles. It has nothing to do
    with my mousedown listeners, either.

    > Are you a newbie?.


    Relatively speaking: Yes, could be. There are quite a few people out
    there, who know more about browser scripting than I do. Idjits from
    Denmark are not among them.

    > What a couple of ar**s here.


    I can only see one.



    --
    http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com
     
    Gregor Kofler, Aug 16, 2010
    #15
  16. se

    se Guest

    "Gregor Kofler" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:i4bqi0$k1e$...
    > Am 2010-08-16 18:36, se meinte:
    >
    > Idjits? Is this a synonym for "usenet dumbfucks from Denmark"?
    >
    >
    > --
    > http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com




    No man having an IQ from normal and up would
    interfere a country into disdain because of an
    internal usenet discussion between a couple of men.

    You've proved yourself to be an idjit. Period!.

    /se
     
    se, Aug 16, 2010
    #16
  17. se

    se Guest

    "williamc" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:...

    > There's nothing wrong, whatsoever, with using CSS3 for non-critical
    > enhancements to web pages, and of course those rules will fail 2.1
    > validation. So what?
    >
    > The browsers that don't understand the rules do nothing, the other
    > browsers present a nicer looking page with very little overhead.
    >
    > The non-semantic overhead with using graphics for rounded corners on
    > boxes that expand both horizontally and vertically is extreme. Many
    > designers use 4 nested divs or else insert extra divs into the DOM using
    > a script (inaccessible).
    >
    > Furthermore, many leading CSS experts and designers who with excellent
    > track records working for web accessibility advocate using CSS3 *now* to
    > enhance web pages.
    >
    > --
    >
    > --williamc


    Different opinions existes on matters.
    One thing;
    When a webdesigner claims his pages for validating.
    Others working in the field tend to see him as a hillbilly when
    finding his pages not validating. He states on he's site, he's pages
    validates. Like I said, found 26 validating errors on this site:
    http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com
    Read his claiming below. I knows he's a smart-ass. And he
    proved it, calling names over a whole country. And he give no
    help here. And play the wise-guy role.
    Read he's claims below:

    http://photo.gregorkofler.com/index.php?page=about

    The website relies on state-of-the-art web technology
    without pushing it. CSS and lean markup is used for
    good measure (yupp - no table-layouts), the applets
    for crossfading slides are nice but no necessity,
    so is most of the JavaScript, no pop-ups, no
    proprietary solutions; instead validating
    pages and a scalable layout
    (unless you prefer absurd font sizes)
     
    se, Aug 16, 2010
    #17
  18. se

    se Guest

    "williamc" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:...
    > On 8/16/2010 5:42 PM, se wrote:
    >>
    >> "williamc" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> There's nothing wrong, whatsoever, with using CSS3 for non-critical
    >>> enhancements to web pages, and of course those rules will fail 2.1
    >>> validation. So what?
    >>>
    >>> The browsers that don't understand the rules do nothing, the other
    >>> browsers present a nicer looking page with very little overhead.
    >>>
    >>> The non-semantic overhead with using graphics for rounded corners on
    >>> boxes that expand both horizontally and vertically is extreme. Many
    >>> designers use 4 nested divs or else insert extra divs into the DOM using
    >>> a script (inaccessible).
    >>>
    >>> Furthermore, many leading CSS experts and designers who with excellent
    >>> track records working for web accessibility advocate using CSS3 *now* to
    >>> enhance web pages.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>>
    >>> --williamc

    >>
    >> Different opinions existes on matters.

    >
    > Agreed.
    >
    >> One thing;
    >> When a webdesigner claims his pages for validating.
    >> Others working in the field tend to see him as a hillbilly when
    >> finding his pages not validating. He states on he's site, he's pages
    >> validates. Like I said, found 26 validating errors on this site:
    >> http://vxjs.gregorkofler.com

    >
    > Disagree. Everything on that very nicely designed site is valid CSS.
    > Yes, it does not validate as CSS 2.1, but that's more of a limitation in
    > the validator.
    >
    > As long as you provide the valid CSS 2.1 rules when necessary, there's
    > no harm in overriding them with CSS 3 rules (e.g. use an rgba color to
    > override a a CSS 2.1 color specification). And IMO there's nothing wrong
    > with using CSS3 enhancements like text-shadow, box-shadow. rgba color
    > etc. When it comes to something like CSS transitions, your case is much
    > stronger.
    >
    > But, as I mentioned before very capable web designers and standards
    > advocates such as Andy Clarke, Dan Cedarholm and Jeff Zeldman recommend
    > that you start using CSS 3 now. It's up to you to decide, but I don't
    > think people are going to see early adopters as know-nothings if they
    > judiciously use CSS 3.
    >
    >> Read his claiming below. I knows he's a smart-ass. And he
    >> proved it, calling names over a whole country. And he give no
    >> help here. And play the wise-guy role.
    >> Read he's claims below:
    >>

    >
    > Well, this might not be the most polite group in the world. but there
    > are many people here who can give you good guidance about how to use
    > Javascript.
    >
    > In the faq it says "Avoid being unnecessarily rude, but do not complain
    > about other rude posts." That's good advice, if generally ignored. :)
    >
    > --
    >
    > --williamc



    Well, somebody would argue below being a limitation in browser
    performance.

    > Yes, it does not validate as CSS 2.1, but that's more of a limitation in
    > the validator.


    Anyway, lack of validation of websites is not limited to sites using
    css3. The majority of websites does not validate. And has not ever
    done this. I believe in the value of having pages to fully validate.
    As a way of easier controlling rendering.
    Don't know much about advanced webdesign. I'm new in web -and
    to javascript too. But had my 18 website pages to validate. As I find
    out the value of this by working the nights over on it. I also can see via
    my sites stat and google too, expenses being participating on
    newsgroup posting ones site here. My site informs a group of people
    with usefull information. Care must be taken against spoiling it by
    posting it all over for the spambots. These spambots operates
    continuously here. The ones persons whom sites is made for their
    own pleasure of show off, should learn to show less.
    I accept peoples way looking at things, as long as they accept mine.
    But no longer than to then.
    /se
     
    se, Aug 17, 2010
    #18
  19. Gregor Kofler wrote:

    > element.style.left = "-10000px" => element.style.left = "0px"


    Please don't post examples like this. The uninitiated could get the idea
    that this would be appropriate in order to show/hide an element (and even
    people who should know better are doing this kind of nonsense).

    Negative lengths are *implementation-dependent* *in* *CSS* to begin with:

    <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#length-units>


    PointedEars
    --
    Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
    who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
    the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
    -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Aug 18, 2010
    #19
  20. se

    se Guest

    "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:...
    > Gregor Kofler wrote:
    >
    >> element.style.left = "-10000px" => element.style.left = "0px"

    >
    > Please don't post examples like this. The uninitiated could get the idea
    > that this would be appropriate in order to show/hide an element (and even
    > people who should know better are doing this kind of nonsense).
    >
    > Negative lengths are *implementation-dependent* *in* *CSS* to begin with:
    >
    > <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#length-units>
    >
    >
    > PointedEars
    > --
    > Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
    > who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
    > the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
    > -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$>


    I think some truth in the lines of Richard Comford.
    The bugs I had, I found it. this one:
    if (document.getElementById("layer10").style.visibility=="hidden")
    doesn't work in any of the major browsers, with the css-style "layer10"
    placed in the head of the document, whereas it works having this style
    inline. I don't see any other reason than the designers of javascript
    didn't knew javascript.
    /se
     
    se, Aug 18, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Federico Bari
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,957
    Federico Bari
    Aug 31, 2003
  2. Dave Smithz
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,368
  3. Dave Smithz
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    7,685
  4. Dhananjay
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,127
    sloan
    Dec 18, 2006
  5. prati
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
    prati
    Oct 27, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page