Ok, about the IE bug... is it possible that element.getPosition and
element.getSize is yielding a different result in IE than in FF?? It
shouldn't right?? This is the code I'm using to position the main DIV
(keep in mind that "this.el" refers to the text input)...
this.mainDiv = new Element('div', {
'styles' : {
'position': 'absolute',
'width': '100%',
'left': this.el.getPosition().x,
'top': this.el.getPosition().y + this.el.getSize().y
}
});
It works fine in FF and Webkit, again, not in IE.... which doesn't
make much sense if we consider that getPosition and getSize should
return the same results in both browser???
On Oct 10, 4:24 pm, SilverTab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah obviously, it would be easier to use with a shorter date range...
> As far as seconds goes, well I already added it, but it resulted
> pretty much in clunkier code...
>
> I'm trying to think of a way to make it simple AND easy to extend, but
> it might not be as easy as I initially thought...
>
> I really don't mind sending the code to github or whatever if anyone
> wants to take a look at it and help me figure it out... problem is, I
> only used git on linux and right now I'm on windows so... I'll have to
> find a "git on windows" tutorial or something hehe... (and to think I
> was FINALLY getting used to svn haha)....
>
> On Oct 10, 4:17 pm, Tom Occhino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In my last message when I said 'hours, minutes, seconds' i meant
> > 'hours, minutes, am/pm'. If a user did decide they needed seconds as
> > well, maybe it could be made easy to extend the HoverPicker.Time Class
> > to add it, but it was just a typo on my part.
>
> > Anyway, decades sounds like a good way to do the year, but I think
> > there should be some way to omit it, as in, only allow the user to
> > pick month and day and have the year be assumed. I was originally
> > thinking in terms of the 'Publish Article On:' date range instead of
> > 'When were you born:' date range.
>
> > If I come up with any good ideas for the interface I'll let you know ;)
>
> > - Tom
>
> > On Oct 10, 2008, at 3:54 PM, SilverTab wrote:
>
> > > Been trying to fix the IE bug for a while with no luck... if anyone
> > > has a clue as to why the whole thing isn't positioned properly in IE
> > > (it should be like 20 or so pixels lower) please let me know ...
>
> > > Right now this is what it looks like:
> > > Text Element, Div (Positioned absolutely) > ul, ul, ul (all
> > > positioned absolutely)
>
> > > I tried the following:
> > > Text Element, Div (Positioned absolutely) > Div (Positioned
> > > relatively) > ul, ul, ul (all positioned absolutely)
>
> > > but no luck... :(
>
> > > On Oct 10, 2:40 pm, SilverTab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Gotta agree that scrolling would make it so much cooler hehe...
>
> > >> First thing first though, right now the code is very messy (i.e. I
> > >> didn't code it with Time AND Date in mind so it's not very
> > >> "inheritance" friendly...) so the first step I guess would be to
> > >> separate the methods/properties etc to determine if it should be part
> > >> of .Base, .Date or .Time.... Probably a bunch of methods that need to
> > >> be re-written with that in mind....
>
> > >> And IE is still a problem :-(
>
> > >> On Oct 10, 2:34 pm, "Guillermo Rauch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>> It's good, but scroll when the right and left boundaries are
> > >>> reached would
> > >>> be amazing too...For example when there're more than 10 elements,
> > >>> the rest
> > >>> are hidden and scrolling is enabled.
>
> > >>> options: {
> > >>> scrollAt: 10
>
> > >>> }
>
> > >>> It'd be coded into HoverPicker base.
>
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM, SilverTab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>> wrote:
>
> > >>>> hmmm should've read your post before I posted mine.... decade is
> > >>>> definitely a way to do it!....
>
> > >>>> On Oct 10, 1:53 pm, "Guillermo Rauch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>>> Oh, and a possible implementation for dates: decade first, then
> > >>>>> specific
> > >>>>> year.
>
> > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Guillermo Rauch
> > >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> I love the plugin, but I don't think it's Mootools More worthy.
> > >>>>>> Plus,
> > >>>>>> our.mootools is coming and we're gonna have dozens of impressive
> > >>>> plugins :)
>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Guillermo Rauchhttp://devthought.com
>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Guillermo Rauchhttp://devthought.com
