http://docs.jquery.com/DOM/Attributes#Attr
--Erik
On 8/15/07, pd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Futher to this overall topic Eric, do you think it would be possible/
> wise to implement a jQuery method that returns any of the standard DOM
> properties? I'm just wishlisting but I think this syntax (each line a
> different example property):
>
> $('#foo').dom('className');
> $('#foo').dom('size');
> $('#foo').dom('type');
>
> would be very intuitive for developers and very consistent with the
> rest of the jQuery library.
>
> It seems more intuitive and consistent than:
>
> $('#foo')[0].className;
> $('#foo')[0].size;
> $('#foo')[0].type;
>
> to me, though maybe the method name of dom() is not the most clear and
> or explicit. It is short though :)
>
> pd
>
> On Aug 16, 11:27 am, "Erik Beeson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > id is supposed to be unique is it not? My example used the # to refer
> > > to a unique id on the page, therefore *not* an array of objects.
> >
> > Wrong, it *is* still an array of objects, it's just an array of length
> > 1. Do console.log($('#foo')) and you'll see that it is still an array,
> > and an array with one object in it is not the same as the object
> > itself.
> >
> > > AFAIK all three examples get an element on the page as a *single* (not
> > > an array) object.
> >
> > And that's wrong. The jQuery object is always an array. It's of length
> > 0 for no matches, 1 for a single match, or more for multiple matches.
> > That's by design, so that the chaining things work consistently. This
> > allows you to make chained calls that won't throw an error, regardless
> > of whether or not the selector found anything.
> >
> > > I think it's reasonable (though perhaps not programmatically correct)
> > > to see $('#foo') as the equivalent of document.getElementById('foo').
> > > If this is not true in jQuery, which it does not appear to be, all I
> >
> > Right, it's not.
> >
> > > am saying is this distinction should be clearly documented.
> >
> > Agreed. This should probably be made clearer. I think the recently
> > discussed post by Simon Willison addresses this really well (under
> > "Doing stuff with them"):http://simonwillison.net/2007/Aug/15/jquery/
> >
> > --Erik
>
>
