Firefox and style="display:block" on table row

"Michael Winter" <> wrote:

>> [...] setting the display property to "block" first and then again to
>> "table-row" should be sufficient providing that the 2 are not conjoined
>> (conjoining confuses IE).
>
>Even that should be unnecessary. Provided that the property is set via the
>style attribute (or style object), which it is in this case,
>
> element.style.display = '';
>
>will effectively remove the inline style value allowing the browser to
>return to the inherited value.

Doesn't work here. Is there such a thing as "inheritance" in DOM? There
is in CSS, but that doesn't apply here. Did you mean default value?

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:16:10 +0000, Spartanicus <> wrote:

> "Michael Winter" <> wrote:

[snip]

>> element.style.display = '';
>>
>> will effectively remove the inline style value allowing the browser to
>> return to the inherited value.
>
> Doesn't work here.

Really? Could you take a look at a quick test at
<URL:http://www.mlwinter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ah/spartanicus/style.html>.
You'll either see text, or you won't. I'd be very interested to know if
you don't (and what user agent you're using).

This should be fairly standard stuff, and a convenient way to sidestep
implementation differences.

> Is there such a thing as "inheritance" in DOM? There is in CSS, but that
> doesn't apply here. Did you mean default value?

I actually meant the cascaded value. As the style attribute (and
corresponding DOM object) represents the inline - and therefore most
specific - style information, removing a particular declaration should
cause a fall back to any applicable cascaded rules.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

Michael Winter

"Michael Winter" <> wrote:

>>> element.style.display = '';
>>>
>>> will effectively remove the inline style value allowing the browser to
>>> return to the inherited value.
>>
>> Doesn't work here.
>
>Really? Could you take a look at a quick test at
><URL:http://www.mlwinter.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ah/spartanicus/style.html>.
>You'll either see text, or you won't. I'd be very interested to know if
>you don't (and what user agent you're using).

It's probably down to my ignorance regarding js and/or dom, but reworked
to what I think the OP wants it doesn't work for me:

http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/test/micheal.htm

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus

Spartanicus wrote:
>>"Michael Winter" wrote:
>>> element.style.display = '';
>>> will effectively remove the inline style value allowing the browser
to
>>> return to the inherited value.
>
>It's probably down to my ignorance regarding js and/or dom, but
reworked
>to what I think the OP wants it doesn't work for me:
>
>http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/test/micheal.htm

You're setting the display: none; in a <style> element. The DOM
element.style.display manipulates the inline styles of the element. So
what you've done is told the DOM to create this: <tr id="#foo"
style="display:">. As the inline display element has no value the value
set in the <style> is used.

But if the display: none; had been set inline in the first place or
added via element.style then you would be overwriting it with the
empty value and hence setting it back to the browser default (or
whatever else may be in the cascade).

Steve

Steve Pugh

Thanks to everybody !
Your discussions have been very helpful, I learned a lot on the display
property.
Effectively, I now understand that the problem is on IE side which
auto-corrects the "block"
and does not support the "table-row".

I will choose the solution [ element.style.display = ''; ] that seems to
work perfectly.

Here is my example:
<table border="1">
<tr><td>Col1</td><td>Col2</td></tr>
<tr id="my_tr" style="display:table-row"><td colspan="2">Col1&2</td></tr>
</table>
<script language="javascript">
alert("");
document.getElementById("my_tr").style.display="no ne";
alert("");
document.getElementById("my_tr").style.display="";
</script>

Thanks again.
Christophe

Christophe MERESSE

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:13:47 +0000, Spartanicus <> wrote:

[snip]

> It's probably down to my ignorance regarding js and/or dom,

I take it that means the demo does work for you then?

> but reworked to what I think the OP wants it doesn't work for me:

As I said in my first post to this thread, this technique only works when
a property is set *inline*, whether it be via the style attribute or the
style object. It won't work if the property is set in the author style
sheet.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

Michael Winter

"Michael Winter" <> wrote:

>> It's probably down to my ignorance regarding js and/or dom,
>
>I take it that means the demo does work for you then?

The text displayed, but your confidence that this was proof that the
demo worked was slightly misplaced, I reckon the fact that I have css
and js disabled resulted in me seeing the text

>> but reworked to what I think the OP wants it doesn't work for me:
>
>As I said in my first post to this thread, this technique only works when
>a property is set *inline*, whether it be via the style attribute or the
>style object. It won't work if the property is set in the author style
>sheet.

I failed to notice that in your post, got it now after Steve's
explanation. I frown upon inline CSS, this method is imo no excuse.

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:01:53 +0000, Spartanicus <> wrote:

[snip]

> I reckon the fact that I have css and js disabled resulted in me seeing
> the text

There isn't much point in testing if a script works with scripting
disabled, is there (except to make sure a document is usable without
client-side scripting).

> I frown upon inline CSS, this method is imo no excuse.

So do I. I would only set inline CSS via a script (generally so it can be
undone by that same script) and in demos such as the one I posted.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

Michael Winter

"Michael Winter" <> wrote:

>> I reckon the fact that I have css and js disabled resulted in me seeing
>> the text
>
>There isn't much point in testing if a script works with scripting
>disabled, is there (except to make sure a document is usable without
>client-side scripting).

That's just the way my browser is set up, I viewed the code, saw that
you didn't use a table, and then reworked it into using a table to get
it into context.

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus

[Sifter]

simple answer:

try{document.getElementById(trFolderControl).style .display = 'block';}catch(er){}
// cross browser style hack style.display = 'table-row'is ff only
try{document.getElementById(trFolderControl).style .display = 'table-row';}catch(er){}

in this case it ie will apply the block then ignore the table-row
ff will overwrite the erroneous block declaration.

Sifter