RE: making div section with xsl invisible

Realizing that this is not the right forum, here is the answer anyway:

That snippet might work, but putting it in an actual table shouldn't. div isn't a valid child element of table and in this case IE is choosing to ignore it. Try putting the style in the tr element itself.

This still shows the row:

<table border="1">
	<tr><td>SOMETHING</td></tr>
	<div style="visibility:hidden">
	<tr><td>Total number:</td></tr>
	</div>
	<tr><td>Something</td></tr>
</table>

This doesn't (in IE6)

<table border="1">
	<tr><td>SOMETHING</td></tr>
	<tr style="visibility:hidden"><td>Total number:</td></tr>
	<tr><td>Something</td></tr>
</table>

Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: rj_peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rj_peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:34 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE:  making div section with xsl invisible






When looking at the rendered source code, it does appear correct.  When I
cut and paste the rendered html part in a simple html page the div section
does not show, but it does show when xsl renders the page.  So it doesn't
appear to be a browser issue, by the way I am using IE 6.0.

<div style="visibility:hidden">
<tr>
<td>
Total number:</td>
</tr>
</div>




visibility:hidden is correct, there isnt a problem with your code.

display:none is different as it doesn't occupy any space.

As per usual, write the html first then once that is correct write the
xslt to produce that html.


> <div style="display:none">
>   <tr>
>      <td>
>        Total number: <xsl:value-of select="$foo"/>
>      </td>
>   </tr>
> </div>
>
> Yov@nis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In my xsl template I have the following code snippet.
>
> <div style="visibility:hidden">
>   <tr>
>      <td>
>        Total number: <xsl:value-of select="$foo"/>
>      </td>
>   </tr>
> </div>
>
> When I render the page this div section still appears.  I
> also tried using the following with the same reuslts.
>
> <div><xsl:attribute name="style">visibility:hidden</xsl:attribute>
>
> Am I missing something simple here?
>
> Thanks