«

I have a couple of layers that are hidden.

When an image is moused over, I want to show the appropriate layer,
then hide it on mouseOut.

The problem is, I get an error telling me "document.all[...].style is
not an object" for whatever layer I have created first. It seems as
though when the second layer is created, it overwrites the first one
....

This has been driving me NUTS! Any suggestions?

Heres my code:

javascript :

function helpWin(meth,obj){
if(meth=="show"){
document.all[obj].style.visibility = 'visible';
}else if(meth=="hide"){
document.all[obj].style.visibility = 'hidden';
}
}

HTML :

<!-- -->
<div id="bcc" style="position:absolute; border: 1px solid balck;
left:420px; top:0px; width:300px; height:50px; z-index:1;
background-color: #FFFFFF; layer-background-color: #FFFFFF;
visibility: hidden;">
<span class="mainTitle">Some Text</span></div>
<!-- -->
<div id="toc" style="position:absolute; border: 1px solid balck;
left:420px; top:0px; width:300px; height:50px; z-index:2;
background-color: #FFFFFF; layer-background-color: #FFFFFF;
visibility: hidden;">
<span class="mainTitle">Some Text</span></div>
<!-- -->

<img src="q.gif" width="10" height="10"
onMouseOver="helpWin('show','bbc');"
onMouseOut="helpWin('hide','bbc');">

<img src="q.gif" width="10" height="10"
onMouseOver="helpWin('show','toc');"
onMouseOut="helpWin('hide','toc');">

Ranbir Kaur wrote:
<snip>
> if (document.getElementById) {
> eval("document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = \"" +
> W3Ctype + "\"");
<snip>
This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted in a long time:-

document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = W3Ctype;

Richard.

Richard Cornford wrote:

> Ranbir Kaur wrote:
> <snip>
>> if (document.getElementById) {
>> eval("document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = \"" +
>> W3Ctype + "\"");
> <snip>
> This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted in a long time:-
>
> document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = W3Ctype;

Not this way, see <http://www.pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami>.
Instead write:

var t;
if ((t = typeof document.getElementById) == "function"
|| (t == "object" && document.getElementById))
{
var o = document.getElementById(id), s;
if (o
&& typeof o.style != "undefined"
&& typeof o.style.visibility != "undefined")
{
o.style.visibility = W3Ctype;
}
}


PointedEars
--
Life is like a french fry. It gets cold, it gets soggy, and it gets limp if
you let it lying around too long.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Cornford wrote:
>> Ranbir Kaur wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> if (document.getElementById) {
>>> eval("document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = \"" +
>>> W3Ctype + "\"");
>> <snip>
>> This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted
>> in a long time:-
>>
>> document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = W3Ctype;
>
> Not this way, see <http://www.pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami>.
> Instead write:
<snip>

This has nothing to do with the futility of the - eval - formulation
used. If you want to talk about the code design it would make most sense
to post a response to individual who designed it, not me.

Richard.

Richard Cornford wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>>> Ranbir Kaur wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> if (document.getElementById) {
>>>> eval("document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = \"" +
>>>> W3Ctype + "\"");
>>> <snip>
>>> This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted
>>> in a long time:-
>>>
>>> document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = W3Ctype;
>>
>> Not this way, see <http://www.pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami>.
>> Instead write:
> <snip>
>
> This has nothing to do with the futility of the - eval - formulation
> used. If you want to talk about the code design it would make most sense
> to post a response to individual who designed it, not me.

I commented on your inappropriate correction.


PointedEars
--
PROZAC: Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Cornford wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>>>> Ranbir Kaur wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> if (document.getElementById) {
>>>>> eval("document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = \"" +
>>>>> W3Ctype + "\"");
>>>> <snip>
>>>> This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted
>>>> in a long time:-
>>>>
>>>> document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = W3Ctype;
>>>
>>> Not this way, see http://www.pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami
>>> Instead write:
>> <snip>
>>
>> This has nothing to do with the futility of the - eval -
>> formulation used. If you want to talk about the code design
>> it would make most sense to post a response to individual who
>> designed it, not me.
>
> I commented on your inappropriate correction.

Are you proposing that I did not post the code for the equivalent
operations without the eval?

In any event, my post was not a correction it was an observation of
manifest futility. And frankly, referring me to your pathetic page on
feature detection, or posting your clunky and pedestrian feature
detection example, looks like trying to teach your grandmother to suck
eggs.

Richard.

Richard Cornford wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>>>>> Ranbir Kaur wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> if (document.getElementById) {
>>>>>> eval("document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = \"" +
>>>>>> W3Ctype + "\"");
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted
>>>>> in a long time:-
>>>>>
>>>>> document.getElementById(id).style.visibility = W3Ctype;
>>>>
>>>> Not this way, see http://www.pointedears.de/scripts/test/whatami
>>>> Instead write:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with the futility of the - eval -
>>> formulation used. If you want to talk about the code design
>>> it would make most sense to post a response to individual who
>>> designed it, not me.
>>
>> I commented on your inappropriate correction.
>
> Are you proposing that I did not post the code for the equivalent
> operations without the eval?

I am proposing that your correction is presenting a still
inappropriate approach, although it is better than using
eval(...). Don't you understand "Not this way"?


PointedEars

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Cornford wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip>
>>> I commented on your inappropriate correction.
>>
>> Are you proposing that I did not post the code for the
>> equivalent operations without the eval?
>
> I am proposing that your correction is presenting a still
> inappropriate approach, although it is better than using
> eval(...). Don't you understand "Not this way"?

And once again you have cut the part of my post where I stated that my
first post to this thread was an observation not a correction, and then
replied as if that statement had not been made.

Richard.