Bug with firefox

**GarryJones** · Aug 31 '08, 09:45 PM

Re: Bug with firefox

Solved!

I was having trouble earlier when I wrote this code so I changed a
couple of <DIVtags to <ptags. It was these that were faulting.

Firefox does not allow <ptags to have a [ style="display: none" ]
component. Strange but true, when turned back to DIV it works
perfectly (even on MSIE). I dread to see my site on other browsers but
know I must......

Sorry to have disturbed you good people.....

However, a wider issue and OT but these differing Internet browsers
are a headache, rather like a country allowing people to drive on the
left and ride side of the road at the same time. I dont care which one
but wouldn't life be jollier if all the companies making browsers bar
one gave up and deleted their products? What's the point of more than
one?

Cheers
Garry Jones
Sweden

**Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn** · Sep 1 '08, 12:25 AM

Re: Bug with firefox

GarryJones wrote:

Solved!

It only seems so. You have merely found a workaround to the problem as
caused by the insufficient analysis of it.

I was having trouble earlier when I wrote this code so I changed a couple
of <DIVtags to <ptags. It was these that were faulting.

Unlikely. Chances are that <http://validator.w3.or g/would have shown
nesting errors.

Firefox does not allow <ptags to have a [ style="display: none" ]
component.

Nonsense.

Strange but true, when turned back to DIV it works perfectly (even on
MSIE).

Which would indicate instead that either your markup or your script so far
is of poor quality, for <p style="display: none">...</pworks fine in my Fx
3.0.1 and all other CSS-capable UAs.

Sorry to have disturbed you good people.....

Don't be sorry for *that*.

PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>

**Arun** · Sep 1 '08, 02:35 PM

Re: Bug with firefox

Firefox does not allow <ptags to have a [ style="display: none" ]

component.

>
Nonsense.

I agree with PointedEars. This claim is completely untrue. I wrote
the
following program and it works perfectly on all browsers I tested it
on.

...
<head>
...
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaS cript">
function toggle_containe r(id)
{
var container = document.getEle mentById(id);
container.style .display = (container.styl e.display == "")
? "none" : "";
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
...
<a href="javascrip t:void(0);"
onclick="toggle _container('som e_text');">Togg le</a>
<p id="some_text" style="display: ;">Hello there</p>
...
</body>
...

Strange but true, when turned back to DIV it works perfectly (even on
MSIE).

>
Which would indicate instead that either your markup or your script so far
is of poor quality, for <p style="display: none">...</pworks fine in my Fx
3.0.1 and all other CSS-capable UAs.

I'd like to add that I checked this code on IE(5,6,7,8b) and
Firefox(infancy-3.0),
after all, checking for browser compatibility is kinda part of my job.

**Steve** · Sep 1 '08, 08:05 PM

Re: Bug with firefox

On Aug 31, 11:39 pm, GarryJones <mor...@algonet .sewrote:

However, a wider issue and OT but these differing Internet browsers
are a headache, rather like a country allowing people to drive on the
left and ride side of the road at the same time. I dont care which one
but wouldn't life be jollier if all the companies making browsers bar
one gave up and deleted their products? What's the point of more than
one?
>

No it wouldn't. Especially if the one that remains was IE.

Cheers
Steve Young
Austria

**Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn** · Sep 1 '08, 09:55 PM

Re: Bug with firefox

Arun wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^
You are encouraged to shorten the attribution line to ease reading, but
please do not remove it.

>>Firefox does not allow <ptags to have a [ style="display: none" ]
>>component.

>Nonsense.

>
I agree with PointedEars. This claim is completely untrue. I wrote
the following program and it works perfectly on all browsers I tested
it on.

Even though it is error-prone and invalid ;-)

[...]
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaS cript">

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
The `language' attribute is deprecated and unnecessary nowadays.

[...]
<a href="javascrip t:void(0);"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
You should not do that, see <http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_24>.

onclick="toggle _container('som e_text');">Togg le</a>

^
There is where the `return' statement belongs.

<p id="some_text" style="display: ;">Hello there</p>

^^^^^^^^^
There you may have syntactically Valid markup, but not Valid CSS;
in a CSS property declaration, the property value is *required*.

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/>

HTH

PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashP ronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M SIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M ac') != -1
) // Plone, register_functi on.js:16

**slebetman** · Sep 1 '08, 10:55 PM

Re: Bug with firefox

On Sep 2, 4:03 am, Steve <stephen.jo...@ googlemail.comw rote:

On Aug 31, 11:39 pm, GarryJones <mor...@algonet .sewrote:
>

However, a wider issue and OT but these differing Internet browsers
are a headache, rather like a country allowing people to drive on the
left and ride side of the road at the same time. I dont care which one
but wouldn't life be jollier if all the companies making browsers bar
one gave up and deleted their products? What's the point of more than
one?

>
No it wouldn't. Especially if the one that remains was IE.
>

Actually quite a few people think it would. Which is why there are
efforts to embed Mozilla in IE:

Roundcube Webmail :: Welcome to Roundcube Webmail

http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm

So now you can use xpath in IE -- HA!

**SAM** · Sep 1 '08, 11:45 PM

Re: Bug with firefox

GarryJones a écrit :

>
Firefox does not allow <ptags to have a [ style="display: none" ]

That's new ?

My Fx.3 accepts this attribute with div or p

**Steve** · Sep 2 '08, 09:45 AM

Re: Bug with firefox

On Sep 2, 12:49 am, slebetman <slebet...@gmai l.comwrote:

On Sep 2, 4:03 am, Steve <stephen.jo...@ googlemail.comw rote:
>

On Aug 31, 11:39 pm, GarryJones <mor...@algonet .sewrote:

>

However, a wider issue and OT but these differing Internet browsers
are a headache, rather like a country allowing people to drive on the
left and ride side of the road at the same time. I dont care which one
but wouldn't life be jollier if all the companies making browsers bar
one gave up and deleted their products? What's the point of more than
one?

>

No it wouldn't. Especially if the one that remains was IE.

>
Actually quite a few people think it would. Which is why there are
efforts to embed Mozilla in IE:
>

There now exist ecmaScript and W3C DOM standards. Yet even though
Microsoft sit on these committees they still do not implement these
standards in IE when the don't feel like it. That is the main cause of
your browser problem.

If there was a sports competition where one side made up it's own
rules as it went along, would it be fair to disqualify all of the
other teams that play by the agreed rules?

Regards, Steve.

**Arun** · Sep 2 '08, 02:45 PM

Re: Bug with firefox

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.dewrote:

Even though it is error-prone and invalid ;-)

I agree that the code is error-prone but is sufficient as an example.

>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
The `language' attribute is deprecated and unnecessary nowadays.
>

Because the `language' attribute is deprecated, it doesn't mean that
it
might not work. It is mainly there for backward compatibility. People
still
use browsers that can not evaluate MIME-types in attribute values.

>

[...]
<a href="javascrip t:void(0);"

>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
You should not do that, see <http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_24>.
>

onclick="toggle _container('som e_text');">Togg le</a>

>
^
There is where the `return' statement belongs.
>

Thanks for the link. I never knew all that stuff. I'll be sure to
clean up my act in days to come.

Thanks again,
Arun

**Dr J R Stockton** · Sep 2 '08, 10:45 PM

Re: Bug with firefox

In comp.lang.javas cript message <48BC643E.90709 09@PointedEars. de>, Mon,
1 Sep 2008 23:53:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@we b.de>
posted:

>Arun wrote:
>^^^^^^^^^^^
>You are encouraged to shorten the attribution line to ease reading, but
>please do not remove it.

The OP is encouraged to ignore your various manias, Herr KontrolleFreak,
and to use a decently informative attribution line, as has (as you know)
been recommended by those who are mote intelligent, mature, and
experienced than yourself.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html-Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/news-use.htm: about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

**Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn** · Sep 3 '08, 06:05 PM

Re: Bug with firefox

Arun wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.dewrote:

>Even though it is error-prone and invalid ;-)

>
I agree that the code is error-prone but is sufficient as an example.

There is a contradiction.

>> <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaS cript">

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
>The `language' attribute is deprecated and unnecessary nowadays.

>
Because the `language' attribute is deprecated, it doesn't mean that
it might not work.

It makes no difference but in MSHTML with the value of "VBScript", and in
Mozilla with the value of "JavaScript1.2" .

It is mainly there for backward compatibility.

Backwards compatibility to an obsolete standard that did not even define the
attribute in the first place? Think again.

People still use browsers that can not evaluate MIME-types in attribute values.

Name one.

Besides, it does not matter whether they can "evaluate MIME-types in
attribute values". Where the `type' attribute is ignored, an ECMAScript
implementation is the default (because at the time of shipping only
available) client-side scripting language. Where it is not, the HTML 4.01
standard was implemented.

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$8 300dec7@news.de mon.co.uk>

Bug with firefox

Bug with firefox

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment