On Dec 15, 11:32 am, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think this is a great approach, and I hope it goes somewhere. How
> > exactly can I help with it?
> Categorizing the "types" would be a great start. Types that should
> "just work", Types that should return booleans, types that we
> obviously don't care about (attributes of isindex, for example), and
> attributes that we provide better alternatives for (Using .click()
> instead of .attr("onclick", fn), for example).
I will take a look at this. I may come to different conclusions than
you, but I will propose something. Having a dump of all the attributes
and documenting what to expect from each would be fantastic.
> > Because height() tries to do so much magic, it ends up that this:
> > $o.attr('height',$o.attr('height'));
> I was 100% serious about a ban concerning everything from CLJ. Please,
> original ideas/concerns/bug reports/test cases only.
Seems petty to me. There is a good test case there that illustrates
the problem. I'm not going to reproduce it to shelter jQuery from CLJ.
Nevertheless, since attr() calls height() for both getter and setter,
the real problem is that
$o.height( $o.height() )
is not reliable in some cases. So perhaps the issue is there, instead
of with attr().
> On the whole though, I'd recommend to just stop reading the group as
> who knows what they will try to pull next.
I've never been a fan of head-in-the-sand. I can find the pearls of
wisdom in the posts there without taking anything personally. And
there is a lot of good, robust, deep stuff posted there that you won't
find in blog posts or discussions here. To each his own.
Matt Kruse
--
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.
