On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:22:33 -0800, Mark Powell wrote: > Thanks to all for your suggestions, but they do not precisely fit what I > need. > > The image solutions assume one look-and-feel...if the standalone were to > be run on Vista, for example, the image would have the wrong motif when > compared to the neighboring conventional checkboxes. And Stephen's > solution uses disabled as the third state, which is not what I need. I > need an enabled third state. > > I am guessing this is not possible, but any other ideas are greatly > appreciated.
Well, the closest you can get is to have a single image that shows the equivocal state that is put on top of a real checkbox, and is hidden. When the user clicks on the checkbox, you check the current state of the hilite and if it is true (checked), you show the equivocal image on top and allow the mouseup to continue (which will change the checkbox to cleared (unchecked), but beneath the equivocal image. Then when the user clicks on the image, you have script that simply hides the image. Then to find out the "state" of the checkbox, you'd just check the visible of the image - if it's showing, you're in an equivocal state; if not, you take the hilite of the checkbox. HTH, Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software, Inc. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution