Problems setting style attrabutes of multiple layers

[Eclectic]

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.a ll[...].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,ob j){
if(meth=="show" ){
document.all[obj].style.visibili ty = 'visible';
}else if(meth=="hide" ){
document.all[obj].style.visibili ty = '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="mainTitl e">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="mainTitl e">Some Text</span></div>
<!-- -->

<img src="q.gif" width="10" height="10"
onMouseOver="he lpWin('show','b bc');"
onMouseOut="hel pWin('hide','bb c');">

<img src="q.gif" width="10" height="10"
onMouseOver="he lpWin('show','t oc');"
onMouseOut="hel pWin('hide','to c');">

[Ranbir Kaur]

Hi,

In article <c7************ **************@ posting.google. com>, Eclectic wrote:

solid balck;
it's definitely dangerous to use 'solid balck;'. I'd recommend a spell checker. Dreamweaver does a good job
for that kind of things.

For the other problem of yours,
The problem is, I get an error telling me "document.a ll[...].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

Use this script, I don't remember where I got it from, and lost the copyright message, thanks to the author
anyway:

--------
function toggleVisibilit y(id, NNtype, IEtype, W3Ctype) {
if (document.getEl ementById) {
eval("document. getElementById( id).style.visib ility = \"" + W3Ctype + "\"");
} else {
if (document.layer s) {
document.layers[id].visibility = NNtype;
} else {
if (document.all) {
eval("document. all." + id + ".style.visibil ity = \"" + IEtype + "\"");
}
}
}
------------------

you use it like:

onMouseOut="tog gleVisibility(' bcc','hidden',' hidden','hidden ');
onMouseOver="to ggleVisibility( 'toc','show','v isible','visibl e');

you can use it for any number of objects, for any kind of event. It's very convenient and works with (AFAIK)
every browser.

Ranbir

[Richard Cornford]

Ranbir Kaur wrote:
<snip>

if (document.getEl ementById) {
eval("document. getElementById( id).style.visib ility = \"" +
W3Ctype + "\"");

<snip>
This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted in a long time:-

document.getEle mentById(id).st yle.visibility = W3Ctype;

Richard.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Cornford wrote:

Ranbir Kaur wrote:
<snip>

if (document.getEl ementById) {
eval("document. getElementById( id).style.visib ility = \"" +
W3Ctype + "\"");

<snip>
This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted in a long time:-

document.getEle mentById(id).st yle.visibility = W3Ctype;

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

var t;
if ((t = typeof document.getEle mentById) == "function"
|| (t == "object" && document.getEle mentById))
{
var o = document.getEle mentById(id), s;
if (o
&& typeof o.style != "undefined"
&& typeof o.style.visibil ity != "undefined" )
{
o.style.visibil ity = 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.

[Richard Cornford]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

Ranbir Kaur wrote:
<snip>

if (document.getEl ementById) {
eval("document. getElementById( id).style.visib ility = \"" +
W3Ctype + "\"");

<snip>
This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted
in a long time:-

document.getEle mentById(id).st yle.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.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Cornford wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

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

document.getEle mentById(id).st yle.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.

[Richard Cornford]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

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

document.getEle mentById(id).st yle.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.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Cornford wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
> Ranbir Kaur wrote:
> <snip>
>> if (document.getEl ementById) {
>> eval("document. getElementById( id).style.visib ility = \"" +
>> W3Ctype + "\"");
> <snip>
> This has got be the most futile use of - eval - posted
> in a long time:-
>
> document.getEle mentById(id).st yle.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

[Richard Cornford]

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.