I.E. 5.5 stylesheet bug?
shaun...@hotmail.com
(from v 5.01) and are experiencing Javascript and stylesheet errors.
<script language="JavaScript">
function Hide ()
{
document.all.mydiv.className = "hidden"
}
</script>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.hidden {visibility: hidden}
-->
</style></head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" onLoad="Hide()">
<div id="mydiv">
<input type="button" name="Button" value="Button">
<input type="button" name="Button" value="Button">
<input type="button" name="Button" value="Button">
</div>
The code above is similar to some code on one of our application
screens. It is supposed to hide 3 buttons contained within a DIV by
setting the DIV's visibilty to hidden. In 5.5 all it does is remove the
labels from the buttons whereas in 5.01 and 4.01 it worked as expected.
Strangely enough though, if (in 5.5) we apply a style directly to the
DIV rather than using a stylesheet class, it works fine.
We would be grateful if anyone could help out here. On a larger scale
does anyone know if there is any info on the net about how HTML,
JScript etc is interpreted differently in the move from I.E 5.01 to 5.5
Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Etan Wexler
> Strangely enough though, if (in 5.5) we apply a style directly to the
> DIV rather than using a stylesheet class, it works fine.
What does it mean to you to "apply a style directly"? I do not understand.
--
Etan Wexler. Batch released. Batch in balance.
Don Verhagen
shaun...@hotmail.com wrote in message <900os2$1ce$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>We have recently started testing one of our applications in I.E v 5.5
>(from v 5.01) and are experiencing Javascript and stylesheet errors.
>
><script language="JavaScript">
>function Hide ()
>{
>document.all.mydiv.className = "hidden"
>}
></script>
><style type="text/css">
><!--
>.hidden {visibility: hidden}
>-->
></style></head>
Notice the semi-colon at the end of the set.
It is important that every set have a
object:value;
(and I know object is the wrong word, but I can't think of the correct term)
Your validated Cascading Style Sheet :
.hidden {
visibility : hidden;
}
Don
PZ
Pat
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:42:56 -0500, in
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets ewe...@hotmail.com (Etan
> Wexler) wrote:
>
> >In article <900os2$1ce$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, shaun...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Strangely enough though, if (in 5.5) we apply a style directly to the
> >> DIV rather than using a stylesheet class, it works fine.
>
> >What does it mean to you to "apply a style directly"? I do not understand.
>
> My guess is that it's a reference to applying style rules through the
> style attribute disaster.
>
> MS have devious ways to plot against the www in their attempt to gain
> total control of it.
>
> Moronizing as many newbies as possible to use the style attribute
> instead of external stylesheets based on correct selectors is only one
> of several methods on their agenda, fully supported by their so called
> "free" authoring tools that spews that style attribute dung all over
> pages.
>
> Applying CSS through the style attribute gives the style rules a
> sufficiently high specificity to be sure to mess up, as good as
> possible, any other style attempt that a user may want to apply into a
> cascade. So MS ends up being able to promise their real money generating
> clients that they will end up in full control on the author side as long
> as they only use MS products.
>
> Another example of their somewhat hidden but very aggressive attempt to
> gain control of the www is directed at the very heart of what creates a
> www in the first place;
>
> Links and Anchors.
>
> An exponentially growing number of www sites have stopped using
> traditional URL's to address other resources and replaced the URL's with
> 'Jscript links'. Naturally such "links" only eventually "works" in other
> browsers but MSIE, and does not work at all behind a security enabled
> firewall or for users that by some reason can/will not use J(ava)script
> in their clients.
>
> As a remark to a post in another thread here in the NG just today, I
> find it highly appalling that a site announced to provide a tutorial on
> CSS1, is not fully usable by one of the best released CSS1 capable
> browsers (Opera 3.62) due to Jscript links being used on that site.
>
> By moronizing a sufficient level of authors and users to think that this
> is the k3ewl way to go, more and more of those moronized, will of course
> se it as natural to "upgrade" to MS software. So called "free" authoring
> tools that helps a long way here too of course.
>
> And then to think that I felt close to be accused of being a "control
> freak" because I want to write mathematically correct CSS style rule
> suggestions? Time to look at the _real_ threats to the www maybe?
>
> Ah what the heck, it's probably too late any way. The day the www stops
> working in my clients I'l just leave it. So far at least usenet is
> usable and I have not yet discovered any bigger threats here.
> (well, MS-Outlook on usenet is a pest but can still be avoided)
>
> --
> Jan Roland Eriksson <jre...@newsguy.com> <http://member.newsguy.com/~jrexon/>
> Moronization: a form of acculturation where people are encouraged to anoint
> themselves with the supposed benefits of a technology, without understanding
> the engineering (or lack thereof.)
Jan Roland Eriksson
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets "Don Verhagen"
<comput...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>shaun...@hotmail.com wrote in message <900os2$1ce$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>><style type="text/css">
>><!--
>>.hidden {visibility: hidden}
>>-->
>></style></head>
>Notice the semi-colon at the end of the set.
>It is important that every set have a
>object:value;
>(and I know object is the wrong word, but I can't think of the correct term)
A CSS declaration is a 'property:value' pair :)
>Your validated Cascading Style Sheet :
>.hidden {
> visibility : hidden;
>}
Well, in fact that semicolon is defined to be a declaration _separator_
in the CSS specs, and is thus not needed after the last declaration.
I agree that it's a good idea to put one in there at the end any way,
but that is for other reasons than to reach correctness.
See further http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA07
--
Jan Roland Eriksson <r...@css.nu> .. <URL:http://css.nu/>
Jan Roland Eriksson
shaun...@my-deja.com
83.s591.tnt9.lnhva.md.dialup.rcn.com>,
ewe...@hotmail.com (Etan Wexler) wrote:
> In article <900os2$1ce$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, shaun...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> > Strangely enough though, if (in 5.5) we apply a style directly to
the
> > DIV rather than using a stylesheet class, it works fine.
>
> What does it mean to you to "apply a style directly"? I do not
understand.
>
> Etan Wexler. Batch released. Batch in balance.
This is what i meant:
The following code behaves incorrectly as the style does not cascade
down to the buttons within the DIV - the button labels merely disappear
********************************************
.
etc
.
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.hidden {visibility:hidden}
-->
.
etc
.
document.all.mydiv.className = "hidden"
********************************************
This code behaves just as expected with the buttons in the DIV taking
on the "hidden" style
********************************************
document.all.mydiv.style.visibility = "hidden"
********************************************
Jan Roland Eriksson
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets PZ <zie...@btigate.com>
wrote:
>Is it safe to say Jan is undecided on this matter? ;)
No ;)
I have only lost all illusions I may ever have had about a good www.
There was a time when I believed that BAD products came out of MS as a
result of a "lack of skilled engineering capacity".
That is the part of my beliefs that I have seriously re-evaluated.
(based on real life experience at work, on the www, and on what MS
is really "teaching" on their own web sites)
I now say that the BAD stuff is a result of careful planning in various
market departments, and for a very specific purpose.
MS has the funds needed to do what they want and they will go on doing
it, all in the holy name of the following simple algorithm...
include "sales.cash";
dcl result BOOL;
dcl "moronize users|authors to buy|use MS products"
function(sales) BOOL external;
dcl MS_shareholders_profit procedure TYPE MONEY external;
repeat forever;
result = FALSE;
repeat until result == TRUE;
result = "moronize users|authors to buy|use MS products";
end repeat;
generate(MS_shareholders_profit);
end repeat;
Eventually the www and its users/authors will run into a brick wall at
"some time near you", since that endless loop can't be broken, except by
crashing, and then possibly start to ask the real questions, as in...
"What happened? Where did we go wrong? What can we do now?" (and some
small mice at the end of that crash line will wisper "maybe there is
something in a history book somewhere that we could learn from"?)
During execution of the loop, and before the system runs out of dynamic
allocatable memory, that will make it crash, consequential damages to
the www will be covered up by more BAD products and following that, a
required re-invention of a lot of wheels.
The "process" is maintained by being "user friendly" and "helpful" to MS
product users, to an extent that approaches ridicule, with animated
paper clips flying around together with wizards and "wish bangs" in
"second guessing type" software. All for the real purpose of "divert and
prohibit" people from using their own brains, and actually spend some
productive time to think and learn, for real, how to solve their own
computing problems.
Capturing the WWW link model for their own purposes is then only one of
many tools that MS has in their tool chest. Another is to once again
marry CSS and J(ava)script. Heck, NS tried that trick back in 96 and
lost the battle in favor of CSS1 [1], never the less we see the same
idiotic security hole open it self up in MS browsers some years later.
CSS was originally designed to be a _non_procedural_and_descriptive_
only_ style language, and that was for a specific purpose. I.e. to allow
the UA to only use functions and procedures that was originally
programmed into it, to control the rendering process of a document.
In CSS there shall be NO such thing as client side executable code to be
downloaded and executed specifically for some documents rendering
purposes, but that "facility" is exactly what MS has opened up in MSIE,
e.g. they do allow "JS function calls" to generate values for CSS
properties :-(
A majority of initially ignorant people will naturally fall for the
"sensation" that MS gives them as in...
"Hey, this looks good, and I did it".
Of course they did not really "do it" they are only seeing the initial
effect of their own, MS inflicted, moronization process attributed by
"flying colors".
[1] http://css.nu/articles/About-JSSS.html
Matt McIrvin
Eriksson <jre...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>I have only lost all illusions I may ever have had about a good www.
I suppose I'm a bit more optimistic. Those "JScript links" are indeed a
plague, as is Flash to a great extent, and Microsoft and Macromedia's
hegemony is no better than Netscape's back in the day when people
considered it acceptable to kick out all browsers other than Netscape 2
(the reason why every Web browser today calls itself "Mozilla"). But AT
LEAST we have CSS implementations on most people's desktops that are, if
not great, good enough to use. At least people who don't want to create
tag soup are not obliged to do so to create nice-looking pages.
Microsoft tried to embrace, extend and extinguish CSS with Internet
Explorer 3 (with a fragmentary implementation oriented toward a notion of
CSS as a proprietary Internet Explorer feature, by rendering the
boneheaded special-effects code in their public CSS Gallery). They
succeeded only in making CSS so frightening that nobody used it for years,
at no particular benefit to themselves. Eventually Web authors started to
complain so loudly that MS started to regard real standards support as a
selling point. They're still making lame excuses, for what are probably
malign reasons, on the Windows platform, but they *have* made progress
even there, and they got at least CSS1 (if not the fragmentary CSS2
support) almost dead right on the Mac. I give them some credit for that.
>There was a time when I believed that BAD products came out of MS as a
>result of a "lack of skilled engineering capacity".
>
>That is the part of my beliefs that I have seriously re-evaluated.
>(based on real life experience at work, on the www, and on what MS
> is really "teaching" on their own web sites)
Yes, and the existence of IE5/Mac also shoots down that particular theory.
Microsoft clearly has the talent.
What I can't figure out is how IE5/Mac was allowed to escape.
--
Matt McIrvin http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/
Scott
> There was a time when I believed that BAD products came out of MS as a
> result of a "lack of skilled engineering capacity".
>
> That is the part of my beliefs that I have seriously re-evaluated.
> (based on real life experience at work, on the www, and on what MS
> is really "teaching" on their own web sites)
>
> I now say that the BAD stuff is a result of careful planning in
various
> market departments, and for a very specific purpose.
>
> MS has the funds needed to do what they want and they will go on doing
> it, all in the holy name of the following simple algorithm...
>
> include "sales.cash";
> dcl result BOOL;
> dcl "moronize users|authors to buy|use MS products"
> function(sales) BOOL external;
> dcl MS_shareholders_profit procedure TYPE MONEY external;
> repeat forever;
> result = FALSE;
> repeat until result == TRUE;
> result = "moronize users|authors to buy|use MS products";
> end repeat;
> generate(MS_shareholders_profit);
> end repeat;
LOL ;)
Now we know who hacked Microsoft's network and stole their source code!
--
Regards,
Scott
P.S. For the record, I think you're theory is spot on.
Jan Roland Eriksson
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets mmci...@world.std.com (Matt
McIrvin) wrote:
>In article <6hja2t48ol8jmvqh5...@4ax.com>, Jan Roland
>Eriksson <jre...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>I have only lost all illusions I may ever have had about a good www.
>
>I suppose I'm a bit more optimistic...
Ok, :)
>Microsoft tried to embrace, extend and extinguish CSS with Internet
>Explorer 3...
>...They succeeded only in making CSS so frightening that nobody
>used it for years, at no particular benefit to themselves.
Let's modify that "They" into the name of a single person, Chris Wilson,
who wrote the CSS code into IE3 all by him self. And when "asked" about
the quality that came out of his work, his defense is that he was
working from a CSS1 draft since CSS1 was not yet a formal recommendation
at that time.
One, of many, highly annoying things in IE3 was that it interpret 'em'
as 'px' leading to total destruction of many CSS based web pages.
I later asked Haakon about the history of the 'em' unit in CSS1, and he
assured me that it was never redefined at any point from the first draft
up to recommendation. So, without intent to impute blame, CSS1 in IE3 is
only the result of one persons lack of knowledge and understanding about
what CSS was supposed to be.
>Eventually Web authors started to complain so loudly that MS started
>to regard real standards support as a selling point.
IE4 was probably the first "usable" CSS1 implementation, still filled
with bugs and right out errors, but anyway.
>They're still making lame excuses, for what are probably malign
>reasons, on the Windows platform, but they *have* made progress
>even there...
Have they really? IE5 contains almost nothing in the form of fixes for
IE4 bugs, IMMIC I once saw a list saying that 9 bugs had been addressed.
Instead there's a lot of bells and whistles included to support "web
page export" from Office2000 applications.
The "Conditional Comment" must be the real "jewel in the crown" as an MS
invention in O2k and IE5 :-)
And then we have the security breach that comes from allowing JScript
function calls for CSS property value assignment. I predict that we
will, not far from now, see the first "CSS virus" that only "works" in
IE5x of course :)
>...and they got at least CSS1 (if not the fragmentary CSS2
>support) almost dead right on the Mac. I give them some credit for that.
Another name at this point, Tantek Celik (there should really be a cedil
at that C in Celik, but I'm avoiding to post outside ASCII on usenet)
Tantek operates out of California, quite a bit away from the daily
routines at Redmond, and has a soul that is "on fire" for software
compliance. My guess is that he is allowed to do what he wants with his
browser code as long as he keeps all the other stuff in WinIE5 available
there too.
And we shall not forget that Tantek may have had good help from a few
other, even in this NG, well known CSS/Mac gurus.
>>There was a time when I believed that BAD products came out of MS as a
>>result of a "lack of skilled engineering capacity".
>>
>>That is the part of my beliefs that I have seriously re-evaluated.
>Yes, and the existence of IE5/Mac also shoots down that particular theory.
>Microsoft clearly has the talent.
Tantek has the clear talent, that is the effect I see. What eventual
talents the rest of Redmond based MS has, except for a really hard
driving marketing and desinformation department, is best judged by
studying the inner workings of O2k apps and how that relates to the
design of IE5x.
The result of such a study may not be all that fun, sorry to say.
>What I can't figure out is how IE5/Mac was allowed to escape.
If you had an employee that is recognized as a good coder...
...that hauls the full development environment and source for MacIE5
around on his laptop when he goes to conferences and meetings.
...that can sit at such a meeting and write new code and build a new
browser to demonstrate something that has just been discussed.
Surely you would give such a guy some latitude, right? :)