Validating opacity css

2) There is no easy way for a module like Date Popup to add it back conditionally in a way that it won't exist for other browsers, but there are many ways for you to do that in your theme (look at the way the Garland theme handles it in php).Drupal's methods of handling these things all assume you are doing it in the theme.If j Query UI is not installed, the 'datepicker' code from this folder will be used.See: - - - Entry So the code comes either from : - j Query UI, which has to be downloaded from and wrapped with the j Query UI Drupal module - ui.from this module So including ui.must be a tactical choice of the maintainers to avoid having to install the j Query UI Drupal module and the external lib.File to patch: date_popup/lib/ui.and File to patch: date_popup/themes/were entered manually.For datepicker, from date_popup/lib/: If j Query UI is installed, the version of the 'datepicker' code from that module will be used.tracking Seems like something similar to here is fixed: a first quick look this could be fixed as a quick fix by only serving the css file on node/*/edit and node/add/* via preprocess_page Actually why not print the "mask style" inline?

Thanks you guys in advance, Jordan of agree, very annoying.Also, since this is really a problem with j Query, we should probably submit the patch to them and get it fixed at the source, rather than having every module that uses j Query patch it separately.The only problem is that I can't figure out what the "source" for datepicker is!I'm thinking loud here, sorry if writing worthless lines !

After screwing around with this for a long time and investigating other alternatives, I decided the best fix was to remove that css and provide information in the Date Popup configuration screen on what to add back if you have trouble. No other browser is affected by it, but it does break validation.

For me the Date_picker is only for admin, so I make sure my clients use anything but IE anyway. I'd like to see a solution that is valid CSS, if possible- the proposed solutions may minimize the problem, but they don't really get rid of it, they just hide it from the validator (at least if I understand them correctly) Having said that, I think the best idea so far is probably to insert mask() inline as proposed in #1.