Home > Parse Error > Parse Error Opacity 80

Parse Error Opacity 80

Advanced Search Forum Client-Side Development CSS CSS Validation: Opacity If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. As long as you know you're using it correctly, you're OK. share|improve this answer answered Aug 8 '12 at 15:16 BoltClock♦ 385k959371048 add a comment| up vote 0 down vote It's not standard CSS, no. Again, selectors/properties/values with the -moz-, -webkit-, -o-, and -ms- or -mso- are legal, but do not validate. have a peek here

I need to be able to refer to their CSS style properties and make dynamic changes in Javascript, but their opacity code is a travesty with no DOM CSS style properties Unlucky for you, opacity is one of those features. I hope Jobs gets out an Apple ad ridiculing this pretend standards compliance that is actually just passive aggressive bullcrap on the part of Micronuts. Please click the link in the confirmation email to activate your subscription. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11867694/w3c-validator-error-parse-error-opacity-60

Why do you need IPv6 Neighbor Solicitation to get the MAC address? It now simply says that "There is no public specification that applies to this property," so it seems that they've given up on the idea of getting it included as an more hot questions question feed default about us tour help blog chat data legal privacy policy work here advertising info mobile contact us feedback Technology Life / Arts Culture / Recreation

Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website @robertnyman Upcoming speaking Photos on Flickr © Robert Nyman, unless stated otherwise. There is no css property in the standard that would allow such a definition format. jameshopkins said: it actually doesn't work in the current RC1. Search this site: Home CSS Forum Recent posts Blog Tools Contact #CSSCreator .com { CSS opacity validation question; } 4 replies [Last post] Fri, 2008-05-02 20:16 radamsiii Offline newbie Last seen:

Reply Sliding Boxes and Captions with jQuery | Build Internet! Or search for that article title in Google, giving more results.Ps: Here's a nice one too: http://www.cssplay.co.uk/opacity/png.html . Isn't opacity=70 a perfect property for filter alpha for IE8 support? .image-section #sliderLeft Parse Error opacity=70) .image-section #sliderRight Parse Error opacity=70) .image-section #caption Parse Error [empty string] Here is the CSS http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30631899/w3c-css-validation-gives-parse-error-for-opacity Reply Mark Perkins says: September 16, 2008 at 16:43 Obviously this situation with MS is far from ideal.

Now I bet you wish you used transparent png files. Glossy material rendering black, in a scene with environment and emission lighting Why does a full moon seem uniformly bright from earth, shouldn't it be dimmer at the "border"? I did try my previous code without the IE 8 code above and seems to still work without applying the extra code, or am I missing something? Should I boost his character level to match the rest of the group?

Any positioning works. anchor Thanks x 13 .galleria-container img Property -moz-user-select doesn't exist : none none 14 .galleria-container img Property -webkit-user-select doesn't exist : none none 15 .galleria-container img Property -o-user-select doesn't exist : none However, I guess we have to assume that support may be dropped completely due to the fact that the old filters don't follow the correct rules for vendor specific extensions and It's just plain stupid how Microsoft insists on complicating things.

Absolute value of polynomial What does 'tirar los tejos' mean? navigate here Make a smallish GIF, say 16 by 16 pixel. x x) has a type, then is the type system inconsistent? Reply Serious memory leak issue with 24-bit PNG images with alpha transparency in Internet Explorer - Robert's talk says: May 26, 2009 at 16:53 […] any difference, I replaced the PNG

The problem is only one opacity. That won't happen with this one. This is often (I would say mostly) not the behaviour that you want. Check This Out Right now I'm having trouble getting my css positioned the same in IE and FF.

In a very justified move, Microsoft is aiming to remove all their own made-up CSS extensions which aren't approved by the W3C (as of yet), so they will all need a By adding position: relative; to a child element those IEs won't opacify the child. I don't care if it maps to your funky filter-solution behind the scenes, but respect the proper way of writing it and the web developers having to write the code.

I've tried both pieces of code for a heading text and find that neither work.

remove them and check share|improve this answer answered Dec 8 '10 at 9:15 Anish Joseph 7672719 Thanks For Reply. –Rakesh Prajapati Dec 9 '10 at 10:02 add a comment| Thanks These are the errors: 13 .galleria-container img Property -moz-user-select doesn't exist : none none 14 .galleria-container img Property -webkit-user-select doesn't exist : none none 15 .galleria-container img Property -o-user-select doesn't Reply Nick Fitzsimons says: September 20, 2008 at 0:16 Things are good thanks, Robert - hope you and your family are all well 🙂 They had the "submitted to the W3C" I love google!

Thanks SoulScratch 2009-02-20 19:46:05 UTC #2 You can move the filter property to IE stylesheets, but honestly you should NOT worry about the opacity error AT ALL - if you're using Reply Robert Nyman says: November 24, 2008 at 22:52 Dan, Yeah, one more weird decision… James, Impossible to tell, but with this approach, you will get opacity for background and text Reply Robert Nyman says: September 19, 2008 at 23:40 Nick, Hey, how's it going? this contact form But CSS opacity in general is far from perfect, as if you make an element say 50% transparent that will also make all child elements of it also 50% transparent.

And for the record, don’t rely on the W3C validator. There is no real way you can implement opacity within CSS 2.1 as Opacity itself was only introduced in the CSS 3 specification, and what makes it worse is that for Posted in CSS, Developing, Technology, Web browsers 56 Comments RSS feed for comments on this post RSS feed for comments on all posts Dave says: September 16, 2008 at 16:12 Althogh