In case you don't know why this isn't working in IE, here is the MSDN documentation on that function:
When you use the getElementsByName method, all elements in the document that have the specified NAME attribute or ID attribute value are returned.
Elements that support both the NAME attribute and the ID attribute are included in the collection returned by the getElementsByName method, but elements with a NAME expando are not included in the collection; therefore, this method cannot be used to retrieve custom tags by name.
Firefox allows getElementsByName()
to retrieve elements that use a NAME expando, which is why it works. Whether or not that is a Good Thing™ may be up for debate, but that is the reality of it.
So, one option is to use the getAttribute()
DOM method to ask for the NAME attribute and then test the value to see if it is what you want, and if so, add it to an array. This would require, however, that you iterate over all of the nodes in the page or at least within a subsection, which wouldn't be the most efficient. You could constrain that list beforehand by using something like getElementsByTagName()
perhaps.
Another way to do this, if you are in control of the HTML of the page, is to give all of the elements of interest an Id that varies only by number, e.g.:
<div id="Change0">...</div>
<div id="Change1">...</div>
<div id="Change2">...</div>
<div id="Change3">...</div>
And then have JavaScript like this:
// assumes consecutive numbering, starting at 0
function getElementsByModifiedId(baseIdentifier) {
var allWantedElements = [];
var idMod = 0;
while(document.getElementById(baseIdentifier + idMod)) { // will stop when it can't find any more
allWantedElements.push(document.getElementById(baseIdentifier + idMod++));
}
return allWantedElements;
}
// call it like so:
var changes = getElementsByModifiedId("Change");
That is a hack, of course, but it would do the job you need and not be too inefficient compare to some other hacks.
If you are using a JavaScript framework/toolkit of some kind, you options are much better, but I don't have time to get into those specifics unless you indicate you are using one. Personally, I don't know how people live without one, they save so much time, effort and frustration that you can't afford not to use one.