Re: [jQuery] Finished: jQuery code assist in Aptana
Edwin, Many many thanks! Edwin Martin wrote: > > Klaus Hartl schreef: >> Edwin Martin schrieb: >> >>> I created the scriptdoc-file needed for code assist in Aptana. >>> >>> You can download it here: >>> >>> http://www.bitstorm.org/edwin/jquery/ >>> >> Thanks Edwin! Great job! >> >> I have sometimes problems with Aptana and large JS files (for example >> when opening the complete, uncompressed jQuery file) - it's getting >> reeeal slow then -, but I'm using it nevertheless. >> > I'm using the normal, uncompressed JS-file (not the annotated version). > So I don't think you will have performance issues. > > The API for Aptana is in a seperate scriptdoc-file. > > On my 1.7GHz notebook I don't notice any performance issues. Well, > actually I do: I work much faster now ;-) > > Edwin Martin > > ___ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Finished%3A-jQuery-code-assist-in-Aptana-tf2817641.html#a7877076 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
[jQuery] Anyone who has experience with libraries other than JQ
Head over to WASP and chime in with any relevant thoughts. I'm sure they don't want their board spammed so please make it relevant to the article if you have any thoughts that pertain (I think JQuery's solution addresses them well). http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/ -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Anyone-who-has-experience-with-libraries-other-than-JQ-tf2815416.html#a7857246 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] jQuery is now on gotAPI.com!!!
Great job! manalang wrote: > > FYI -- for all those that know about http://gotapi.com, jQuery > documentation > (ver 1.0.3) is now available on their site. > > If you don't see it under the "AJAX and Frameworks" section, you may need > to > refresh your browser cache. > > Rich > > ___ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-is-now-on-gotAPI.com%21%21%21-tf2810300.html#a7844928 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Efforts to Convert Folks to jQuery
I can't wait! Excellent! manalang wrote: > > I just contributed the jQuery API doc to gotapi.com... let's see how long > it > takes them to get it up. > > Rich > > On 12/7/06, Edwin Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Rey Bango wrote: >> > Guys, some of you may know of my efforts to get jQuery more exposure. >> > >> I think it would be a good idea to have jQuery on sites like gotapi.com. >> >> They're open for contributions (code, that is). >> >> Site: http://www.gotapi.com/ >> >> How to contribute your API: http://www.gotapi.com/contribute/index.html >> >> Edwin Martin (jquery-enthousiast since a week). >> >> -- >> http://www.bitstorm.org/edwin/en/ >> >> ___ >> jQuery mailing list >> discuss@jquery.com >> http://jquery.com/discuss/ >> > > ___ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Efforts-to-Convert-Folks-to-jQuery-tf2774482.html#a7768443 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Efforts to Convert Folks to jQuery
I think another point to add to my previous novel is that JQuery should present itself as it is without regard to some of the traditional mainstays of "if you have product a you have to market the b way". The idea behind JQuery is what makes it important and useful. If the idea itself is promoted, and it is made obvious through the communications with the outside world that this IS an important and useful idea for others, people will naturally gravitate towards the it. JQuery - 'The way JavaScript should be' ... the communications/marketing will stand out just like the concept does. Solid Source wrote: > > Of particular importance to JQuery I believe is finding a way to help > developers understand VERY OBVIOUSLY that this is not another > Prototype/Dojo///, but rather a very different way to address the issue of > DOM interaction in a concise not overly verbose manner. I have used every > major(and minor for that matter) lib out there for various projects/apps > and I am absolutely committed to JQuery after all my experimenting. > > You all know why ... :) > > The only reason it took so long for me to convert was that I saw JQuery > initially as just another lib. JQuery was less publicized at the time and > that made for easy oversight of it's true value. > > If you/we find a way to make it obvious at first glance(wherever the first > glance lives) what we have here is special in a way you haven't > experienced yet in your libquest(s), along with a very concise and > simple(layman's terms) why, I feel this would be a huge benefit. > > So I pointed out a problem so here's a few ideas/solutions: > > 1. Change the slogan "New Wave Javascript" to something more along the > lines of explaining what it does or how it does it rather than what it is. > Everyone thinks they are new wave right? :) > > 2. The jquery.com homepage has this text as the first paragraph at the > top, "jQuery is a new type of Javascript library. It is not a huge, > bloated framework promising the best in AJAX - nor is it just a set of > needlessly complex enhancements - jQuery is designed to change the way > that you write Javascript.". Along with the first section heading, "What > is jQuery?". > > Why did this not sink in for me the first few times I visited the site? > I'll choose some libraries that I have used in the past, before > converting, and break out their home pages ... > 1. dojo: "Dojo is the Open Source JavaScript toolkit that makes > professional web development better, easier, and faster." > 2. prototype: "Prototype is a JavaScript framework that aims to ease > development of dynamic web applications" > 3. scriptaculous/proto: "script.aculo.us provides you with easy-to-use, > cross-browser user interface JavaScript libraries to make your web sites > and web applications fly." > 4. mochikit: "Makes JavaScript suck less." - I love this one > 5. rico: "An open-source JavaScript library for creating rich internet > applications. Rico provides full AJAX support, drag and drop management > and a cinematic effects library." > > commonalities: they all make JavaScript development better, easier, and > faster of course :). This was what stuck everytime I crawled the web for a > new library, so I was looking unconsciously for something to stand out > other than the obvious. > > I think the JQuery homepage explanation is very honest, but it "sounded" > like it was going to make my development better, easier, and faster. I > didn't want to spend the time(I hit JQuery after proto,script,mochi,rico) > to try yet another lib, especially if it is less known - probably meaning > rel. cycles are low, community is small, plug ins obsolete. I might have > taken the time if I had somehow "got it" without having to dig around a > commit a lot of time. So ... long winded point comes ... if the homepage > featured very little text describing JQuery, and a lot more functional > concise examples, and talk of community, plugins, etc ... I think the > segways from what do I need, to hey that looks nice, to let me try that > with my problem, to why didn't I start using this sooner mean new JQuery > users faster. > > closing example: JQuery homepage-marketing landing page > > JQuery - "some catchy, maybe slightly off topic phrase" - remember Mochi - > "Makes JavaScript suck less." > > example > brief expl. 1 $() method, maybe - why is this different than prototype? > > brief how > dom manipulation example 1 - link to demos > > brief how > effects example 1 - link to demos > > brief how > dom manipulation example 2 -
Re: [jQuery] Gallery slideshow
I have seen somewhere (can't find the link) a port of lightbox (http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/) v2.0 to jquery. Samad wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I have a question , there is a jquery plugin for a multicategory gallery > with slideshow ? just like this one : http://www.couloir.org/ > > Thx. > Samad > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Gallery-slideshow-tf2776024.html#a7746450 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Efforts to Convert Folks to jQuery
Absolutely! Current events, recent library additions, recent links from digg/techn, dev snapshots, who uses Jquery!! (what sites etc ...) etc etc. would definitely raise the visibility of how active the community and development is. digital spaghetti wrote: > > I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The jQuery site, though a > useful tool is a little dull and as you say doesn't tell you how > "fresh" things are. > > I think a leaf could be taken out of what some other communities on > the web do and look at making the jQuery homepage more like a > community hub, and less like a "this is jQuery" page. > > A few additional ideas to what I had before: > > Have a "today" box telling you all the freshest information such as > current build of jQuery, latest/updated plugins, links to tutorials > for beginners on the front page, clearer nacvigation. > > Tane > http://digitalspaghetti.me.uk > > On 12/7/06, Solid Source <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Of particular importance to JQuery I believe is finding a way to help >> developers understand VERY OBVIOUSLY that this is not another >> Prototype/Dojo///, but rather a very different way to address the issue >> of >> DOM interaction in a concise not overly verbose manner. I have used every >> major(and minor for that matter) lib out there for various projects/apps >> and >> I am absolutely committed to JQuery after all my experimenting. >> >> You all know why ... :) >> >> The only reason it took so long for me to convert was that I saw JQuery >> initially as just another lib. JQuery was less publicized at the time and >> that made for easy oversight of it's true value. >> >> If you/we find a way to make it obvious at first glance(wherever the >> first >> glance lives) what we have here is special in a way you haven't >> experienced >> yet in your libquest(s), along with a very concise and simple(layman's >> terms) why, I feel this would be a huge benefit. >> >> So I pointed out a problem so here's a few ideas/solutions: >> >> 1. Change the slogan "New Wave Javascript" to something more along the >> lines >> of explaining what it does or how it does it rather than what it is. >> Everyone thinks they are new wave right? :) >> >> 2. The jquery.com homepage has this text as the first paragraph at the >> top, >> "jQuery is a new type of Javascript library. It is not a huge, bloated >> framework promising the best in AJAX - nor is it just a set of needlessly >> complex enhancements - jQuery is designed to change the way that you >> write >> Javascript.". Along with the first section heading, "What is jQuery?". >> >> Why did this not sink in for me the first few times I visited the site? >> I'll >> choose some libraries that I have used in the past, before converting, >> and >> break out their home pages ... >> 1. dojo: "Dojo is the Open Source JavaScript toolkit that makes >> professional >> web development better, easier, and faster." >> 2. prototype: "Prototype is a JavaScript framework that aims to ease >> development of dynamic web applications" >> 3. scriptaculous/proto: "script.aculo.us provides you with easy-to-use, >> cross-browser user interface JavaScript libraries to make your web sites >> and >> web applications fly." >> 4. mochikit: "Makes JavaScript suck less." - I love this one >> 5. rico: "An open-source JavaScript library for creating rich internet >> applications. Rico provides full AJAX support, drag and drop management >> and >> a cinematic effects library." >> >> commonalities: they all make JavaScript development better, easier, and >> faster of course :). This was what stuck everytime I crawled the web for >> a >> new library, so I was looking unconsciously for something to stand out >> other >> than the obvious. >> >> I think the JQuery homepage explanation is very honest, but it "sounded" >> like it was going to make my development better, easier, and faster. I >> didn't want to spend the time(I hit JQuery after proto,script,mochi,rico) >> to >> try yet another lib, especially if it is less known - probably meaning >> rel. >> cycles are low, community is small, plug ins obsolete. I might have taken >> the time if I had somehow "got it" without having to dig around a commit >> a >> lot of time. So ... long winded point comes ... if the homepage featured >> very
Re: [jQuery] Efforts to Convert Folks to jQuery
Every Java/PHP/etc developer I have ever met hates interaction with the DOM via javascript, mostly because each browser has it's quirks and things in the JavaScript/DOM interaction don't work as consistently as say type casting a variable in Java/PHP - when you write public String myVar = "my value"; it always works, when you want to position a positioned, nested, floated, absolutely positioned element for a menu via JavaScript/DOM ... you see what I mean :). I guess what Mochi could say to be more accurate is "Makes interacting with the client side suck less", but I guess substituting JavaScript makes more sense to a broader audience? Klaus Hartl-3 wrote: > > >> 4. mochikit: "Makes JavaScript suck less." - I love this one > > First I liked it too, after I thought about it, I don't like the > attitude. Who said, JavaScript sucks...? I wouldn't want to program in a > language that I think it sucks, with or without an API. > > I'm really wondering if the gurus think that JavaScript sucks? > > > > -- Klaus > > ___ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Efforts-to-Convert-Folks-to-jQuery-tf2774482.html#a7746239 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
Re: [jQuery] Efforts to Convert Folks to jQuery
Of particular importance to JQuery I believe is finding a way to help developers understand VERY OBVIOUSLY that this is not another Prototype/Dojo///, but rather a very different way to address the issue of DOM interaction in a concise not overly verbose manner. I have used every major(and minor for that matter) lib out there for various projects/apps and I am absolutely committed to JQuery after all my experimenting. You all know why ... :) The only reason it took so long for me to convert was that I saw JQuery initially as just another lib. JQuery was less publicized at the time and that made for easy oversight of it's true value. If you/we find a way to make it obvious at first glance(wherever the first glance lives) what we have here is special in a way you haven't experienced yet in your libquest(s), along with a very concise and simple(layman's terms) why, I feel this would be a huge benefit. So I pointed out a problem so here's a few ideas/solutions: 1. Change the slogan "New Wave Javascript" to something more along the lines of explaining what it does or how it does it rather than what it is. Everyone thinks they are new wave right? :) 2. The jquery.com homepage has this text as the first paragraph at the top, "jQuery is a new type of Javascript library. It is not a huge, bloated framework promising the best in AJAX - nor is it just a set of needlessly complex enhancements - jQuery is designed to change the way that you write Javascript.". Along with the first section heading, "What is jQuery?". Why did this not sink in for me the first few times I visited the site? I'll choose some libraries that I have used in the past, before converting, and break out their home pages ... 1. dojo: "Dojo is the Open Source JavaScript toolkit that makes professional web development better, easier, and faster." 2. prototype: "Prototype is a JavaScript framework that aims to ease development of dynamic web applications" 3. scriptaculous/proto: "script.aculo.us provides you with easy-to-use, cross-browser user interface JavaScript libraries to make your web sites and web applications fly." 4. mochikit: "Makes JavaScript suck less." - I love this one 5. rico: "An open-source JavaScript library for creating rich internet applications. Rico provides full AJAX support, drag and drop management and a cinematic effects library." commonalities: they all make JavaScript development better, easier, and faster of course :). This was what stuck everytime I crawled the web for a new library, so I was looking unconsciously for something to stand out other than the obvious. I think the JQuery homepage explanation is very honest, but it "sounded" like it was going to make my development better, easier, and faster. I didn't want to spend the time(I hit JQuery after proto,script,mochi,rico) to try yet another lib, especially if it is less known - probably meaning rel. cycles are low, community is small, plug ins obsolete. I might have taken the time if I had somehow "got it" without having to dig around a commit a lot of time. So ... long winded point comes ... if the homepage featured very little text describing JQuery, and a lot more functional concise examples, and talk of community, plugins, etc ... I think the segways from what do I need, to hey that looks nice, to let me try that with my problem, to why didn't I start using this sooner mean new JQuery users faster. closing example: JQuery homepage-marketing landing page JQuery - "some catchy, maybe slightly off topic phrase" - remember Mochi - "Makes JavaScript suck less." example brief expl. 1 $() method, maybe - why is this different than prototype? brief how dom manipulation example 1 - link to demos brief how effects example 1 - link to demos brief how dom manipulation example 2 - link to demos - start hitting the what and whys of JQ brief how .get() - .post() - .load() example 1 - link to demos ... ... - really get into the what and whys of JQ Thinking out loud here :). thumblewend wrote: > > Hi Rey, > This is slightly off-topic of me but I'm not sure how else to get in > contact with you. I just want you to know that I replied to your > direct email a few weeks ago (regarding the case study), but I think > my email didn't get past your junk filter. Please advise if you are > still interested, and maybe add my email to your address book so I > get through to you. > Sorry for this email everyone else, please forgive me. > > Joel Birch. > > On 08/12/2006, at 12:45 AM, Rey Bango wrote: > >> Guys, some of you may know of my efforts to get jQuery more exposure. > > > ___ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Efforts-to-Convert-Folks-to-jQuery-tf2774482.html#a7744856 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ jQuery mailing list disc
Re: [jQuery] loading content and using events
Try adding the submit handler into the loaded code so that it is evaluated
when the form is parsed. If this is not the answer can you plz submit all of
your related js?
Blair McKenzie-2 wrote:
>
> You need to put this
> $("#submission_form").submit(function() {
>alert('click');
> });
> in the callback for the load. The order of things happening at the moment
> is
> probably something like:
> 1. Request form with .load
> 2. Attach event to all #submission_form's (of which there are none at the
> moment)
> 3. Receive the form back from load and add it
>
> By putting the bind in the callback, you can be sure that the request is
> compeleted first.
>
> Blair
>
> On 12/2/06, roykolak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> This question involves the following situation...
>>
>> The main html page has container divs that are blank.
>> When the page loads, a javascript function called 'pageLoad();' is
>> called.
>> This function fills a blank div called 'top' with a form.
>> It does this via .load('php/dspFrontPage.php')
>> dspFrontPage.php contains...
>>
>> > $toDisplay .= "";
>> $toDisplay .= "> name='firstSentence' />";
>> $toDisplay .= "> />";
>> $toDisplay .= '';
>>
>> echo $toDisplay;
>> ?>
>>
>> This form contains a text input and a submit button, standard stuff.
>>
>> On the main html page just below pageLoad(), an event for the submission
>> of
>> the form is waiting...
>>
>> $("#submission_form").submit(function() {
>> alert('click');
>> });
>>
>>
>> The .load event works just fine
>>
>> The problem here is that when the form is submitted, the submit event is
>> never called. When I copy and paste the form into the main html page (not
>> using .load), everything works fine.
>>
>> I'm new to the AJAX 'stuff'. Is there something I am missing? Or not
>> getting
>> right?
>>
>> Roy Kolak
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/loading-content-and-using-events-tf2741280.html#a7648795
>> Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> jQuery mailing list
>> discuss@jquery.com
>> http://jquery.com/discuss/
>>
>
> ___
> jQuery mailing list
> discuss@jquery.com
> http://jquery.com/discuss/
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/loading-content-and-using-events-tf2741280.html#a7649006
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
