ditto. On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:00 AM, weepy <jonah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > i strongly support this. > > to my mind the notion that you can exclusively apply feature detection > to the extremely complex browsers is optimistic. > there just too many features and special cases to handle. > > On 28 Oct, 12:09, jez9999 <jez9...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry to reignite this debate in a new thread rather than replying to >> the old one, but for some reason Google Groups wouildn't let me reply >> to the old one. The suggestion was that the jQuery documentation be >> reworded so that $.browser not be called 'Deprecated', but that its >> usage perhaps be discouraged. I'd strongly support this rewording, >> John et al... could we please see it in the next version of the jQuery >> docs? >> >> I'm not sure I'd even go as far as 'strongly discouraging' the use of >> this property; sometimes it's a lot quicker and more convenient to use >> it than feature detection, and/or the feature detection just isn't >> there. For instance I'm developing a webpage and I happen to know >> that IE7 doesn't support the 'before' or 'after' pseudo selectors... I >> just want to detect whether this is IE7 and behave accordingly, as I >> can leave the other browsers alone and not need to emulate this css in >> Javascript. So for this reason I'd really like to see things reworded >> as something like 'please try to use $.support, but this can be used >> if necessary;. Also I'd like to see that word Deprecated dropped; it >> has a particular meaning in programming, which generally implies that >> it has been 100% obsoleted by something else and may well be dropped >> in a future release. I don't think this applies or should apply to >> $.browser, so it should not be called Deprecated. >> >> Best regards, >> Jeremy Morton (Jez) >> >> On Jul 6, 4:02 pm, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Re-wording the documentation from 'deprecated' to 'strongly discourage >> > the use of' (or something similar) might be ok. I'm not sure what else >> > we can do on our end - we already link to a number of guides that >> > provide good information on the subject matter. >> >> > As to the linked Stack Overflow discussion - perhaps injecting a rule >> > into the stylesheet and then detecting to see if the rule sticks might >> > work (not sure, just guessing off-hand). >> >> > --John >> >> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Ralph Whitbeck<ralph.whitb...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > As of 1.3 $.browseris listed as deprecated in support of jQuery.support. >> > > The thinking is that developers should be basing their checks on >> > > functionality instead of user agent strings. >> >> > > I think this is throwing a lot of novice jQuery users as they see the >> > > word >> > > deprecated and think that they shouldn't use it as the method is going >> > > away. From my understanding that method isn't going away. >> > > (http://osdir.com/ml/misc/2009-01/msg00001.html"According to John R, >> > > $.browserand version will remain in the core indefinitely, despite being >> > > deprecated...") For some cases it's really difficult to determine what >> > > piece of functionality to use to get the desired result. For instance, >> > > today, I noticed a coworker used $.browser.safari to build code specific >> > > to >> > > a Safari issue we were having. Knowing that $.browserwas listed as >> > > deprecated I went to find the correct way to segment out safari using >> > > $.support() unfortunately based on the docs I found this to be >> > > impossible to >> > > easily determine which is the best approach to use and I am still not >> > > sure >> > > it's possible. >> >> > > I did some research to see if there was an easy way to segment Safari >> > > from >> > > the rest using $.support() and found this thread on Stack Overflow that >> > > seems to support developer confusion on the issue. >> > >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/584285/detecting-ie6-using-jquery-... >> >> > > Developers want to do the right thing and listing the method as >> > > deprecated >> > > flags the developer to avoid that method at all costs. I think it would >> > > be >> > > better to list the method as not a "best practice" instead of deprecated >> > > and >> > > explain why functionality checks are better then user agent sniffing. >> >> > > Also it would be good to flush out some scenarios for developers to use >> > > which functionality test for certain browsers and certain scenarios. >> >> > > Thoughts? Am I off base on this? >> >> > > Ralph > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jQuery Development" group. > To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en.
