I just looked through the thread and I'm not sure what code you mean. A pastie would be great ( http://paste.pocoo.org/ or http://jsbin.com/ ). Thanks.
- Richard On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM, webspee...@gmail.com <webspee...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Would you be able to cut and paste the code above and see if it works > for you? > > On Feb 26, 11:18 am, "webspee...@gmail.com" <webspee...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Yeah. I have the latest. To be sure, I just downloaded the latest > > version of jquery and I got the 6src6 UI, I just downloaded the latest > > of that too. > > > > Does the code look good? > > > > On Feb 26, 9:46 am, "Richard D. Worth" <rdwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:11 AM,Webspeeder<dr...@bigrocksports.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Well, I finally got things to work. I ended up removing everything I > > > > had and starting over. I also switched to the exploded version (not > > > > the 'min' version) but I don't know if that's the issue because I > > > > haven't tried the min since I got it to work. I figure if it's > > > > working, I don't want to mess with it until I fully understand it. > > > > > > Now though, the onclick for tab is not working. Back to the pit I > > > > go..... > > > > > Just to be sure, are you using compatible versions of jQuery and jQuery > UI > > > > > jQuery UI 1.5.3 is only compatible with jQuery 1.2.6 > > > jQuery UI 1.6rc6 is only compatible with jQuery 1.3+ > > > > > I ask because when you have incompatible versions, it presents by just > the > > > symptom you've described: events not firing. > > > > > - Richard > > > > > > On Feb 25, 3:22 pm, brian <bally.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Richard D. Worth < > rdwo...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:06 PM, brian <bally.z...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> In my use, at least, I'm not including UI components in all > views. > > > > > >> And, when I do, there may be just one widget or whatever out of > > > > > >> several that I might use. I could create several "personalized" > > > > > >> files--one for each use case--but then I can't rely on the core > file > > > > > >> being cached because it's bundled up with several different > widgets. > > > > > >> And I'd require a personalized bundle for every combination I > might > > > > > >> want in future. Better, I think, to just include what I need, as > I > > > > > >> need it. > > > > > > > > We're looking at a hybrid approach. Say if you select 3 plugins, > it > > > > would > > > > > > include those 3 individual files, as well as a combined file that > > > > contain > > > > > > those 3 in 1. What do you think? > > > > > > > Yeah, I'd like something like that. > > > > > > > Don't get me wrong, though--I think the personalized bundles are a > > > > > good idea for some situations. But, in my case, at least, I've only > > > > > got a few places where I need UI stuff, and then only one thing or > so > > > > > at a time. I did consider creating bundles for each instance with a > > > > > separate core file (so it'd be better cached) but ran into problems > > > > > similar towebspeeder's. It seemed as if the bundle wasn't quite > > > > > correct. And I'm pretty sure it was tabs also, as withwebspeeder. >
