opacity

[Darko]

Hi,

I'm trying to get and set an element's opacity, but I'm stuck with,
what a hell of surprise, Internet Explorer. As for getting the
element's opacity, I have the following (not working) lines of code:

if ( targetObject.fi lters && targetObject.fi lters.length 0 )
opacity =
targetObject.fi lters.item("DXI mageTransform.M icrosoft.Alpha" ).Opacity;

Setting it, I tried:

if ( targetObject.fi lters && targetObject.fi lters.length 0 )
targetObject.se tAttribute( "style", "filter: alpha(opacity=" +
opacity + ")" );

None work. I have digged these out from some MSDN article, but they
aren't working, at least they don't work in to me available IE 6.0. Do
you have better (i.e. working) ways of yours?

Thanks

Darko

[David Mark]

I kind of mucked up that explanation. You would need to maintain your

own gEBID and getAnElement to have your level of support for IE4. The
logic that a developer with uncommon requirements maintains his own
implementations was the point.

Sounds good to me.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

David Mark wrote:

On Dec 7, 6:52 pm, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:

>On Dec 7, 3:32 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

>>This is similar to Thomas' oft-mentioned isFeatureType function, but
is slightly in improved in that it does the truthy test internal and
covers ActiveX methods. Point to PointedEars. On the downside, the
fact that I am agreeing with him

It's contagious.

I hope not.

>>may signal the end of the world.

:-)

This is how it starts. Next thing you know, people will start
agreeing with VK. I think one of Nostradamus' quatrains referenced
such events as a prelude to the apocalypse.

Generally, understanding will be helped greatly by considering the argument
before the name. That is where many people fail to make the distinction.
PointedEars

[Peter Michaux]

On Dec 7, 4:26 am, "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:

David Mark wrote:

[...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote:

David Mark wrote:
On Dec 6, 3:02 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:
David Mark wrote:

[snip]

>This is because there is no reliable way to determine if host object
>methods are callable.
It would seem there is. There does not seem to be a reliable way yet to

How do you figure?

Because evaluating the type before and trying read access only if the type
indicates feasibility has not caused unexpected behavior so far.

And if you get typeof(o) == 'object', how does that tell you it is
callable?

If I get that result and *then* the value is not a false-value and I
am expecting the identifier to designate a host object's method, at
the least I can be pretty sure that it is callable.

That seems reasonable.

[snip]

--
Peter
Code Worth Recommending Project
http://cljs.michaux.ca

[Peter Michaux]

On Dec 8, 5:13 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

On Dec 8, 6:01 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:

[snip]

[...]
I tested with the first posted example. No problem.

You have tested with a subset of user agents and leap to the conclusion that
there can never be a problem.

You have snipped out the context of that quote. It referred to the
testing of ActiveX methods. And I tested with virtually every version
of Windows IE, which is the only browser that exposes ActiveX
methods. If you think there is a problem related to the global/window
issue that you keep coming back to, that is another matter (and I
still disagree with you.)

Were these IE browser versions all on the same install of windows? I
am getting more sceptical of this type of testing lately.
Unfortunately a solution costs real dollars :-S

--
Peter
Code Worth Recommending Project
http://cljs.michaux.ca

[David Mark]

On Dec 11, 8:08 pm, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:

On Dec 8, 5:13 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

On Dec 8, 6:01 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:

[snip]

[...]
I tested with the first posted example. No problem.

You have tested with a subset of user agents and leap to the conclusion that
there can never be a problem.

You have snipped out the context of that quote. It referred to the
testing of ActiveX methods. And I tested with virtually every version
of Windows IE, which is the only browser that exposes ActiveX
methods. If you think there is a problem related to the global/window
issue that you keep coming back to, that is another matter (and I
still disagree with you.)

Were these IE browser versions all on the same install of windows? I

Yes.

am getting more sceptical of this type of testing lately.

There can be issues, like the DirectX opacity "library not registered"
snafu (which can safely be ignored unless you are worried about
developers' test machines.) I have the ActiveX feature testing on
Win98 in the past though.

And I can't get IE4 to work at all on my primary test machine. No
idea why. IE3 works (sometimes) and I use it to make sure that
scripts degrade properly as virtually nothing I write will enhance
pages in that browser.

Unfortunately a solution costs real dollars :-S

I've got enough machines, but I don't feel like uninstalling IE6/7
from any of them as I worry it will screw up Windows or other
applications. I still have a Win98 box, but I haven't turned it on in
years. If I determine that the multiple IE on XP approach has
problems I can't work around or discount, perhaps I will uninstall IE6
on the Win98 box and use it to test IE5.x.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javas cript message <1f7731f6-6ef8-4c28-8ce0-9c531ac0eb85@d2
1g2000prf.googl egroups.com>, Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:15:45, Peter Michaux
<pe**********@g mail.composted:

>Code Worth Recommending Project
http://cljs.michaux.ca

I've looked at this, and have seen no indication of how to find code.
To the incomer, it looks like an amusement park for experts, of no
practical use. IMHO, it should be rapidly seeded with some known-not-
too-bad code (which can be improved later, if needed), so that it can be
seen, rapidly, to be of some possible use.

International forms should be used in all cases, not merely local ones.
This, in <http://cljs.michaux.ca/trac/timeline>, the date sequence looks
ludicrous to all non-Americans. Use YYYY-MM-DD, as in ISO 8601 - even
Americans can understand it, and there's no need for them to like it.

Page <http://cljs.michaux.ca/trac/changeset/8and no doubt others - in
my IE6, the monospace text is unreasonably small. Zoom does not work.

Search results : unreadably small, no Zoom, FFF dates.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SonOfRFC1036)

[Peter Michaux]

On Dec 12, 3:17 pm, Dr J R Stockton <[e-mail] mon.co.ukwrote:

In comp.lang.javas cript message <1f7731f6-6ef8-4c28-8ce0-9c531ac0eb85@d2
1g2000prf.googl egroups.com>, Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:15:45, Peter Michaux
<petermich...@g mail.composted:

Code Worth Recommending Project
http://cljs.michaux.ca

I've looked at this, and have seen no indication of how to find code.

There are two ways on the front page: a browse source link and a
subversion command to get the code. Sure one day the project may be a
success and deserve a flashy page but that is not a priority right
now, at least for me.

To the incomer, it looks like an amusement park for experts, of no
practical use. IMHO, it should be rapidly seeded with some known-not-
too-bad code (which can be improved later, if needed), so that it can be
seen, rapidly, to be of some possible use.

Having code in the repository is a priority and it will be there at
least "rapidly" on a geological scale. There is no time line for the
project.

International forms should be used in all cases, not merely local ones.
This, in <http://cljs.michaux.ca/trac/timeline>, the date sequence looks
ludicrous to all non-Americans. Use YYYY-MM-DD, as in ISO 8601 - even
Americans can understand it, and there's no need for them to like it.

trac is a prepackaged piece of software that is good on the whole.

Page <http://cljs.michaux.ca/trac/changeset/8and no doubt others - in
my IE6, the monospace text is unreasonably small. Zoom does not work.

Search results : unreadably small, no Zoom, FFF dates.

This is not a priority, at least for me. I can read the pages just
fine and know how to adjust my browser when that is not the case with
some pages on the web. If you are passionate about this and want to
find the CSS that causes the problem. You can send a patch.

--
Peter
Code Worth Recommending Project
http://cljs.michaux.ca/