Actually that's not the best example. There is some "standardisation"
that goes on for the href attribute. Especially with respect to IE and
how it deals with adding or leaving off the full path.
Karl Rudd
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Josh Nathanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, jQuery does not always assist in cutting code. For example:
>
> $("a").each(function() {
> console.log( this.href, $(this).attr("href") ); // these produce equal
> values
> });
>
> When dealing with element attributes, it is often faster and cleaner to
> just use plain 'ol javascript. Don't let this dissuade you from using
> jQuery. In most cases it will save you lots of time and effort.
>
> -- Josh
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "jQuery (English)" <jquery-en@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:17 PM
> Subject: [jQuery] Re: checked attribute of radio buttons not handled nicely
> in 1.2.3
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > No, but....
> >
> > I am generating XML to send to my server. I was replacing what was
> > basically
> >
> > var xmlString = "<foo state="' + document.all.ProtectLocal.checked +
> > '"/>';
> >
> > with
> >
> > var xmlString = "<foo state="' + $('#ProtectLocal').attr("checked") +
> > '"/>';
> >
> > Because I like the jQuery way of specifying items. And the above
> > makes more sense then what is actually needed:
> >
> > var xmlString = "<foo state="' + $('#ProtectLocal').attr("checked") ?
> > true : false + '"/>';
> >
> > jQuery makes my code so much more readable and allows me to remove a
> > lot of existing JavaScript, this would be the first time it resulted
> > in more JavaScript to do the same thing.
> >
> > -= chuck
> >
>
>
