0

Just wondered if anyone knows if there is an MS equivalent of the hidden property, which doens't work in IE. Or do I have to just use the style properties to set visibility/display because IE sucks so bad?

3
Contributors
6
Replies
9
Views
6 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Troy III
0

Hy have you tried pie.htc it is a fix made to ie to support some css proprieties like border -radius box -shadow linear -gradient and more visit their site it will help you to do your job easily as pie Click Here

-2

That's some of the dumbest reinventions I've ever seen!
Moreover it's against the core principles of web coding.

Have you ever heard of CSS?
i.e.:
visibility: hidden / visible;
or
display: none / block / inline-block;
etc?

Evermore, w3schools are teaching you wrong HTML(5),
Because in HTML(n) you don't have to write: <p hidden="hidden"> because it is a Boolean!

You can write <p hidden="bananas"> for that matter and it will work.

The proper HTML syntax is: <p hidden> and it will suffice.

And how about <p disabled> or <a href=" " disabled>
"All non IE browsers suck!"
or should I say: you suck too for not knowing that content presentation is a css matter.

Edited by Troy III

Votes + Comments
If you don't want to help, don't post.
1

OK neither of those answered my question.

@Dany12

thanks, but that doesn't help specifically - I can just use css.

@Troy_III

The question was posed out of simple curiosity as to whether MS had some proprietary implementation similar to the HTML5 attribute that they apparently don't support.

That's some of the dumbest reinventions I've ever seen!
Moreover it's against the core principles of web coding.

That's as may be but it is in the HTML5 spec.

Have you ever heard of CSS?

Thats why I said "do I have to just use the style properties" ... I know how to do it in css, I wanted to know if I could do it using the hidden attribute, or some other way supported in IE.

Evermore, w3schools are teaching you wrong HTML(5),

w3schools is a simple reference, not the be-all and end-all of web development. It was a quick and easy link to provide more information about the question I was asking, not a religous quotation.

Because in HTML(n) you don't have to write: <p hidden="hidden"> because it is a Boolean!

You can write <p hidden="bananas"> for that matter and it will work.

The proper HTML syntax is: <p hidden> and it will suffice.

If you actually read the page, they do have:

<element hidden>
<element hidden="hidden">
<element hidden="">

And how about <p disabled> or <a href=" " disabled>

I don't need to disable an element, I need to hide it. I know about this property as well as many others. What was your point here exactly?

"All non IE browsers suck!"

Sure, why not. IE is the least standards compliant and has a history of such. My comment was a light hearted jest, and I meant no offence to the zealots.

or should I say: you suck too for not knowing that content presentation is a css matter.

This particular case is not a presentation matter, it is functionality based and is being set via server side generated javascript based on a series of complex conditions. You shouldn't assume reasons for wanting to do a thing, when all that was posed was a hyperthetical question.

Edited by |-|x: typo

-1

No sun, I'm not a zealot,
and that was not asking a question
that was you declaring your zealotry.

If you hate IE it's your lack of knowledge on this browser side and something you'll have to deal with yourself.

And on contrary, IE is the first browser in history who started supporting standards.
That was until standards body got cluttered by Netscape losers who took "standards" as a weapon of war and went completely south -that is, against the coder (and friendly coding); against IE; and against already established standards soon after Netscape went sold to AOL. IE 4 was fully standards compliant which also offered some extras which are possible only after 14 years of w3c jerking around that is -wagging war against the best browser in existence. Mind me saying.

Everything done afterwards, came as a result of hundreds of hours of thinking on how to make existing standard IE versions non-compliant with perpetually revised standards. Which also included defecting from common sense and the standard itself, just so you can say IE is non-compliant because for instance: " 'name' attribute is a part of standard which IE doesn't support", no matter the fact that the name attribute was completely abandoned / deprecated by the same standards in exchange for the newly introduced ID attribute according to which: name and id are to be treated as one and the same, and to be supported only for backward compatibility until pages using name would faze out.

IE for being the first and only compliant browser did exactly that. And for doing so, years later had to pay with its own reputation, and be scammed by ignorants hypocrites and other fan-boy zealotry. But you don't know nothing about that.

I don't need to disable an element, I need to hide it. I know about this property as well as many others. What was your point here exactly?

I also don't need to hide an element by declaring this attribute in-line, 1. because using css is a better practice, and 2. a cleaner way to go. "...so what's your point here exactly?"

Contrary to that: even though (not only I, but all of us ) need the DISABLED attribute, - we don't go yelling around "I hate non IE browsers" because I can't have this functionality on my page (i.e.: make my link elements and similar disabled while client meets some particular requirement.)
Which is a better reason to do so, (that is 'scumming around') at least for a reason -since there are no alternative methods to that, and contrary to your completely unjustified argument, can not be achieved in any other way.

This particular case is not a presentation matter, it is functionality based and is being set via server side generated javascript based on a series of complex conditions. You shouldn't assume reasons for wanting to do a thing, when all that was posed was a hyperthetical question.

And of course that's not an excuse; You go tell this kidding story to somebody else, because, needles to say, - if you claim to be able to generate a script that sets the hidden attribute, but not a script that sets or resets the visibility/display attribute instead - will be a highly "convincing" one.

Not to mention the fact that if you are doing these things server-side, it is far more professional to not serve the hidden content at all during the initial load and deliver only if requested by your clients, and also spare me from having to mention the benefits of it.

So it is obvious that you were not asking a question, nor having trouble, -you were inventing your excuse to be scumming on some particular browser.

But why not find yourself a better cause in life instead of fighting somebody else's war for a change?
The old news is: browser wars are over(!) - so don't waste your time or daniweb's bandwidth on things you never even needed assistance to begin with...

0

Whatever.

Look... I develop for cross platform and cross browser compatibility. Always. I know how to make the various browsers quirks work, and was enquiring about a new attribute I hadn't explored yet. Again, the original question was theoretical in nature and the slight against IE was in jest. If you can't take the joke, take your rage-fest someplace where people care. Daniweb is not the place for it.

we don't go yelling around "I hate non IE browsers"

Except that that is exactly what you have been doing the last 2 posts.

You know, I have read some of your other recent posts as well, and you sound angry. Like you have a major chip on your shoulder against anyone who doesn't do things precisely the way you think they should be done. Maybe its just general teenage angst, I don't know, but you should probably talk to someone about it.

I posted for an intelectual discussion - which I am clearly not getting - not a flame war, and as such I am going to let this thread die without expending the energy to read or respond to this or other posts further.

Edited by |-|x

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.