opacity

Phillip Parr wrote:

You lot are pretty harsh to people who don't know your little set of
'rules'.

I'd say deal with it, and don't take it personally. This group is a
bunch of normal people with an above-average knowledge of CSS. The
easiest questions to answer are those which follow our little set of
rules, which apply across most technical newsgroups.

Learn from the experience - we all have - and you'll find a better
response to future questions. But yes, as a bunch of closet geeks, we
can be fairly terse at times when asked to answer questions on
IE-specific Javascript...

Welcome!

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Phillip Parr wrote:

Thanks for your help, it wasn't quite the solution but using the same logic
I removed the section of code where i explicitly set the opacity to 0 and
that worked great. You're also the only person that tried to help, the
people from the css place are really, VERY snooty!

Because it wasn't a CSS question. See my response in ciwas about snootiness.

PS you top-posted again... ;-)

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

This I understand, but firstly it was technically a css issue, as it was to
do with css styles, the fact that I was using IE specific opacity is neither
here nor there, I like to get code working in one browser before I make it
work in others too.
Secondly It'd be nice to be told the rules, rather than have them ranted at
me like some nerdy 15 year old spot machine was trying to offend me!


"Brian" <usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

Phillip Parr wrote:
"Spartanicus" wrote ...

Top posting is not appreciated here, snipping quotes is. Corrected
this once.

You lot are pretty harsh to people who don't know your little set of
'rules'.

That we are. You'd do well to learn those rules if you want help. If you
don't want help, then you needn't follow them.

HTH.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)

"Mark Tranchant" <mark (AT) tranchant (DOT) plus.com> wrote

Phillip Parr wrote:
Thanks for your help, it wasn't quite the solution but using the same
logic I removed the section of code where i explicitly set the opacity to
0 and that worked great. You're also the only person that tried to help,
the people from the css place are really, VERY snooty!

Because it wasn't a CSS question. See my response in ciwas about
snootiness.

PS you top-posted again... ;-)

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Sorry, it's hard to not top post. I've been doing it with emails all my
life, it's hard to suddenly change. And why isn't it a css issue? It's part
of the styles isn't it?

This I understand, but firstly it was technically a css issue, as it was
to
do with css styles, the fact that I was using IE specific opacity is
neither here nor there, I like to get code working in one browser before I
make it work in others too.
Secondly It'd be nice to be told the rules, rather than have them ranted
at me like some nerdy 15 year old spot machine was trying to offend me!

Oh, and before you rant again, I'm sorry for the top post!

"Brian" <usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid> wrote in message
news:HvArd.1015207$Gx4.234368 (AT) bgtnsc04-news (DOT) ops.worldnet.att.net...
Phillip Parr wrote:
"Spartanicus" wrote ...

Top posting is not appreciated here, snipping quotes is. Corrected
this once.

You lot are pretty harsh to people who don't know your little set of
'rules'.

That we are. You'd do well to learn those rules if you want help. If you
don't want help, then you needn't follow them.

HTH.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)

Phillip Parr wrote:

And why isn't it a css issue? It's part
of the styles isn't it?

Yes, it's part of the styles. But that part does work. The dynamic
change is done with JavaScript and that's where the problem occured.

Daniel

"Daniel Kirsch" <Iwillnotread_daniel (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote

Phillip Parr wrote:
And why isn't it a css issue? It's part of the styles isn't it?

Yes, it's part of the styles. But that part does work. The dynamic change
is done with JavaScript and that's where the problem occured.

Daniel

Yes, but I didn't know that, I thought it may have been a general problem
with the css part of it, which is why I asked in both.

Phil

Phillip Parr wrote on 02 dec 2004 in comp.lang.javascript:

Sorry, it's hard to not top post. I've been doing it with emails ..

This is NOT email, Philip, but usenet posting.

...all my life, it's hard to suddenly change.

You must be very young.

Evertjan.

"Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort (AT) interxnl (DOT) net> wrote

Phillip Parr wrote on 02 dec 2004 in comp.lang.javascript:

Sorry, it's hard to not top post. I've been doing it with emails ..

This is NOT email, Philip, but usenet posting.

Really? I'd never have guessed! And what i meant by emails were: my news
reader positions me at the top of a news post when i reply, the same as an
email does

...all my life, it's hard to suddenly change.

You must be very young.

I am, I'm only 22. email has been around since the 70's, so what can I say?

Evertjan.

Phillip Parr wrote on 02 dec 2004 in comp.lang.javascript:

This is NOT email, Philip, but usenet posting.

Really? I'd never have guessed!

A good thing I told you, ain't it?

And what i meant by emails were: my news reader
positions me at the top of a news post when i reply, the
same as an email does

That is a strange way to define the word "email".

Evertjan.