|
Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
Hi -
I am trying to write some Javascript that will move both buttons and selects from far left of the viewport into and out of the viewport. I present a button that moves in another button. The second button moves in a select. All of this works in Firefox. Moving the button in and out works in IE7, but moving in the select does not, despite the exact same code being used in both cases. The code is below. Note that I added the "min-height: 0" style statement to the style because I thought that this might be a Microsoft "layout" problem, but setting min-height did not affect the problem. Any help appreciated; Garey Mills <html> <head> <style type="text/css"> div.extraout { position: absolute; left: -9999em; min-height: 0 } </style> <script language="JavaScript"> function ucbmoveIn(name) { var elem = document.getElementById(name); elem.style.position = "static"; } function ucbmoveOut(name) { var elem = document.getElementById(name); elem.style.position = "absolute"; } </script> </head> <body> <button name="more" value="more" onClick='ucbmoveIn("l");return false;'>More</button> <div class="extraout" id="l"> <table> <tr> <td><button name="a" value="a" onClick='ucbmoveIn("a");return false;'>A</button></td> </tr> </table> <button name="less" value="less" onClick='ucbmoveOut("l");return false;'>Hide</button> </div> <div class="extraout" id="a"> <tr><td>As</td><td> <select name="lA" id="lA" size="10" multiple="multiple"> <option value="ach">acholi</option> <option value="ada">adangme</option> <option value="afh">afrihili</option> </select> </td></tr></table> <button name="hideAs" value="hideAs" onClick='ucbmoveOut("a");return false;'>Hide</button> </div> </body> </html> |
Re: Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
garey wrote:
> I am trying to write some Javascript that will move both buttons > and selects from far left of the viewport into and out of the > viewport. I present a button that moves in another button. The second > button moves in a select. > > All of this works in Firefox. Moving the button in and out works > in IE7, but moving in the select does not, despite the exact same code > being used in both cases. The code is below. Note that I added the > "min-height: 0" style statement to the style because I thought that > this might be a Microsoft "layout" problem, but setting min-height > did not affect the problem. > > Any help appreciated; > > Garey Mills > > <html> Not Valid. > <head> > <style type="text/css"> > > div.extraout { position: absolute; left: -9999em; min-height: 0 } Smart people hide the element instead of placing it in CSS hell. > </style> > > <script language="JavaScript"> Not Valid. HTML 4.01 and the `type' attribute turn 10 years this December; amazing how long such obsolete nonsense as above keeps floating around the Web. <http://validator.w3.org/> > function ucbmoveIn(name) { > > var elem = document.getElementById(name); The feature test is missing. RTFM, RTFFAQ, STFW. > elem.style.position = "static"; "static" is the default value. Had you not mindlessly moved the element beyond good and evil in the first place, that operation would have been unnecessary. > > } > > function ucbmoveOut(name) { > > var elem = document.getElementById(name); See above. > elem.style.position = "absolute"; No. > } > > </script> > </head> > > <body> > > <button name="more" value="more" onClick='ucbmoveIn("l");return > false;'>More</button> The less compatible `button' element is unnecessary here, a (dynamically generated) input[type="button"] suffices. > <div class="extraout" id="l"> Very self-explaining ID, really. > <table> > <tr> > <td><button name="a" value="a" onClick='ucbmoveIn("a");return > false;'>A</button></td> See above. > </tr> > </table> You don't need this table at all. Learn HTML and CSS before you try to learn JS. > <button name="less" value="less" onClick='ucbmoveOut("l");return > false;'>Hide</button> See above. Forget about `return false'; use type="button" instead and generate this dynamically. (Did anyone tell you already that you should learn HTML before you try to learn JS?) > </div> > > <div class="extraout" id="a"> See above. > <tr><td>As</td><td> Not Valid. There is no table for this table row as the one table in the document ended well before this line. > <select name="lA" id="lA" size="10" multiple="multiple"> See above. Besides, this isn't XHTML, is it? HTML UAs tend to choke on this boolean syntax, even though SGML allows it. RTFM. > [...] > </td></tr></table> > <button name="hideAs" value="hideAs" onClick='ucbmoveOut("a");return > false;'>Hide</button> See above. PointedEars |
Re: Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>> <select name="lA" id="lA" size="10" multiple="multiple"> > > See above. Besides, this isn't XHTML, is it? Why would that matter? > HTML UAs tend to choke on this That’s a nice bunch of weasel words. > boolean syntax, Come again? > even though SGML allows it. I withdraw my first question. You seem to know that HTML UAs don’t have any SGML capabilities. Please explain all those URI references to the W3C validation service to confirm compliance with a validating SGML system. > RTFM. Or STFW if you are too cheap to buy the manual that actually matters if you want to discuss esoterica. |
Re: Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
Eric Bednarz wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >>> <select name="lA" id="lA" size="10" multiple="multiple"> >> See above. Besides, this isn't XHTML, is it? > > Why would that matter? In XHTML this is required; in HTML this is recommended against. >> HTML UAs tend to choke on this > > That’s a nice bunch of weasel words. > >> boolean syntax, > > Come again? > >> even though SGML allows it. > > I withdraw my first question. > > You seem to know that HTML UAs don’t have any SGML capabilities. Please > explain all those URI references to the W3C validation service to > confirm compliance with a validating SGML system. > >> RTFM. > > Or STFW if you are too cheap to buy the manual that actually matters if > you want to discuss esoterica. Idiot. <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.4> <http://jibbering.com/faq/#posting> <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before> PointedEars |
Re: Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
kangax wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> garey wrote: >>> div.extraout { position: absolute; left: -9999em; min-height: 0 } >> Smart people hide the element instead of placing it in CSS hell. > > CSS hell? Please explain another way to "hide" an element in such way > that its content is "picked up" and pronounced by screen readers. No, because the whole thing is not accessible in the first place. PointedEars |
Re: Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
On Apr 30, 8:53*am, kangax <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > garey wrote: > [...] > >> div.extraout { position: absolute; left: -9999em; min-height: 0 } > > > Smart people hide the element instead of placing it in CSS hell. > > CSS hell? Please explain another way to "hide" an element in such way > that its content is "picked up" and pronounced by screen readers. If an element is hidden, you don't want it to be read by screen readers. If it is not hidden, you certainly don't want to place it off-screen so that only blind people will be aware of it. |
Re: Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
On Apr 30, 12:47*pm, kangax <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote: > > On Apr 30, 8:53 am, kangax <kan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>> garey wrote: > >> [...] > >>>> div.extraout { position: absolute; left: -9999em; min-height: 0 } > >>> Smart people hide the element instead of placing it in CSS hell. > >> CSS hell? Please explain another way to "hide" an element in such way > >> that its content is "picked up" and pronounced by screen readers. > > > If an element is hidden, you don't want it to be read by screen > > readers. *If it is not hidden, you certainly don't want to place it > > off-screen so that only blind people will be aware of it. > > Most of the time not. But there are cases when information can be > perceived fully only visually and some additional content/explanation > needs to be presented to a screen reader. These cases are rare but they > do come up once in a while. Sure, there are exceptions. I've seen that strategy advocated as a replacement for hidden visibility though, which it clearly is not. > > I suppose this article explains it best (and features actual examples): > > <http://www.webaim.org/techniques/css/invisiblecontent/> No time at the moment, but beware of anything you find on the Web. Just as with JS, there are lots of people expressing lots of ideas about how to use CSS on the Web (and most of them are wrong.) > > -- > kangax |
Re: Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
On Apr 30, 8:13*pm, kangax <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote: > > On Apr 30, 12:47 pm, kangax <kan...@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > >> I suppose this article explains it best (and features actual examples): > > >> <http://www.webaim.org/techniques/css/invisiblecontent/> > > > No time at the moment, but beware of anything you find on the Web. > > Just as with JS, there are lots of people expressing lots of ideas > > about how to use CSS on the Web (and most of them are wrong.) > > That's true; There's plenty of bizarre explanations and workarounds > floating around. WebAIM, on the other hand, is a quite respected > resource, as far as I know. If you have any objections to the material > from that article, I would be interested to hear them. I'll check it out when I get a chance. > > On a side note, it would be nice if the information one can find in this > newsgroup would get more attention on the web. Cornford's and More is always better when it comes to attention. Lots of misconceptions to clear up at this point. > Crockford's articles are good examples of spreading some of the > browser-scripting (or language, overall) techniques, as well as Peter > Michaux's blog (I think one of his feature detection -related articles > is how I found out about comp.lang.javascript in the first place). > > Some time ago, I made a naive attempt at releasing a set of examples of > some of the common feature tests one might stumble upon. The funny thing > is that when it got to Ajaxian, some people actually argued about > sniffing being "faster" and supposedly more superior. Ajaxian is a rag. And that must have been some time ago as I don't think anyone would argue for browser sniffing at this point. |
Re: Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
[multiple="multiple"] >>> RTFM. >> >> Or STFW if you are too cheap to buy the manual that actually matters if >> you want to discuss esoterica. > > Idiot. You are a pompous wannabe-hacker permanently stuck in adolescence. > <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.4> If you wanna be pragmatic, the HTML 4.01 spec is ten years old, that section was already in the first HTML 4 spec that is eleven years old, and if you consider WG speed it is likely that this note is about the browser landscape twelve years ago or older. So this is supposed to back up your statement “HTML UAs tend to choke on this”? If you wanna be dogmatic, there are no ‘boolean attributes’ in SGML. There’s attribute name omission for name token lists, and historically that was *the* reason to enable SHORTTAG in the quixotic attempt to retrofit HTML into an SGML application. So where’s the appendix note that explains how ‘boolean attributes’ enable notation like <td justify> ? :-) |
Re: Simple script works in Firefox but not IE7
Eric Bednarz wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: > [multiple="multiple"] >>>> RTFM. >>> Or STFW if you are too cheap to buy the manual that actually matters if >>> you want to discuss esoterica. >> Idiot. > > You are a pompous wannabe-hacker permanently stuck in adolescence. At least I'm not such a luser like you. I've given (you) enough hints on where to find the relevant information, yet you've been either unable or unwilling to look it up, and instead engage in pointless quibbling over words without even trying to back up *your* assertions. >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.4> > > If you wanna be pragmatic, the HTML 4.01 spec is ten years old, that > section was already in the first HTML 4 spec that is eleven years old, > and if you consider WG speed it is likely that this note is about the > browser landscape twelve years ago or older. So this is supposed to back > up your statement “HTML UAs tend to choke on this”? Unless someone can provide sufficient proof to the contrary. Which nobody can, of course. > If you wanna be dogmatic, there are no ‘boolean attributes’ in > SGML. There’s attribute name omission for name token lists, and > historically that was *the* reason to enable SHORTTAG in the quixotic > attempt to retrofit HTML into an SGML application. Interesting if true, but entirely irrelevant here. Following the HTML 4.01 Specification, Appendix B, section 3.4, has only potential advantages and no drawbacks. > So where’s the appendix note that explains how ‘boolean attributes’ > enable notation like > <td justify> > ? :-) Hush, hush, baby. PointedEars |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.