On Feb 16, 2:13 am, Klaus Hartl wrote:
> > It's false in IE because it tests for use of the 'opacity' style, not
> > whether the browser has opacity support. Since IE uses filters to
> > achieve opacity this results in a false value. I think it makes sense
> > when you think of it that way.
>
>
> It's false in IE because it tests for use of the 'opacity' style, not
> whether the browser has opacity support. Since IE uses filters to
> achieve opacity this results in a false value. I think it makes sense
> when you think of it that way.
Sure. Although I would have called the property so
> > I thought that was the point of $.support - If it doesn't support the
> > standard implementation, then it's false.
>
> Probably you're right. I had just a different interpretation... I
> would still be confused that this value is false in IE, although if
> I'd use fadeIn/fadeOut it'll work.
On 15 Feb., 20:59, Ricardo Tomasi wrote:
> I thought that was the point of $.support - If it doesn't support the
> standard implementation, then it's false.
Probably you're right. I had just a different interpretation... I
would still be confused that this value is false in IE, although if
I'd u
I thought that was the point of $.support - If it doesn't support the
standard implementation, then it's false.
On Feb 14, 8:46 pm, Klaus Hartl wrote:
> On 14 Feb., 20:31, Chris wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 2:34 am, Klaus Hartl wrote:
>
> > > That will not avoid IE's ClearType issue, since IE is su
On 14 Feb., 20:31, Chris wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:34 am, Klaus Hartl wrote:
>
> > That will not avoid IE's ClearType issue, since IE is supporting
> > opacity and you still end up in the else branch.
>
> > I think it's one of he rare cases where you need to do browser
> > sniffing. I don't think
> Are you saying that IE changes its UA string depending on whether
> ClearType is enabled or not?
No.
On Feb 13, 2:34 am, Klaus Hartl wrote:
> That will not avoid IE's ClearType issue, since IE is supporting
> opacity and you still end up in the else branch.
>
> I think it's one of he rare cases where you need to do browser
> sniffing. I don't think there's a way to find out, if the ClearType
> i
On Feb 13, 5:34 pm, Klaus Hartl wrote:
> That will not avoid IE's ClearType issue, since IE is supporting
> opacity and you still end up in the else branch.
>
> I think it's one of he rare cases where you need to do browser
> sniffing. I don't think there's a way to find out, if the ClearType
>
That will not avoid IE's ClearType issue, since IE is supporting
opacity and you still end up in the else branch.
I think it's one of he rare cases where you need to do browser
sniffing. I don't think there's a way to find out, if the ClearType
issue is happening or not.
--Klaus
On 13 Feb., 0
On Feb 13, 1:30 pm, John Resig wrote:
> That seems like a good use to me!
I notice that when defining jQuery.support (around line 3012) a
script element is added as a child of the HTML element. While modern
browsers seem to tolerate that, it is invalid HTML.
Is there any reason why it isn'
That seems like a good use to me!
--John
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> I ventured into feature detection, and I want to make sure I'm doing
> this the "right" way. Basically the fx on the jQuery UI tabs causes
> aliasing in IE 6/7 (but not 8). Instead of checking for thos
12 matches
Mail list logo
