[jQuery] Test message - Please disregard

[Rey Bango]

Testing out an issue on the list. Please disregard.

Rey
jQuery Team

[jQuery] Test - please ignore

[anoop]

Test - please ignore

[jQuery] test post

[David]

test post

[jQuery] test - sorry, ignore -- why can't I see my posts....

[kali]

I can't see any posts I post to this group, why is this, WHY is it at
all that you only read this forum if you're logged on to google??
most forums online you just need to register with the forum.. WHY
bring google in

either way, even after logging on to my google acct I can't see my
posts (they get emailed to me if I check "send me a copy", but I don't
see the posts here http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/topics?gvc=2

thank you...

[jQuery] test for .is(":visible") fails in Safari

[Jon Crump]

Dear all,

I'm not sure if this is a jQuery question or not, but I got the following 
code to work in FF, but it fails in Safari:


$(".thumb").click(function() {
var imgName = $(this).attr("alt");
var el = $("#dropdown");
if (el.is(":visible") && $("#pic").attr("name") == imgName) return;
else {
el.fadeOut("slow", function() {
$("#loading").show();

el.find("#textContent")
.text(pix[imgName].aText);

el.find("#pic")
.attr({"src": pix[imgName].imgSrc, "name": imgName})
.load(function(){
el.fadeIn("slow");
$("#loading").hide();
});
});
}
});

The if/else test was necessitated by the fact that if the user clicked on 
the same thumbnail image twice, the #dropdown element faded out and didn't 
fade back in.


In FF clicking on the same image twice makes no change, but in Safari, 
clicking on the same image twice makes no change IF #dropdown is visible, 
if #dropdown is NOT visible and the user clicks on the same thumbnail that 
was last clicked on, the loading gif displays but the #dropdown does not.


I'm sure this is just my own javascript inexperience, but can anyone 
suggest where I'm going wrong?


Thanks,
Jon

[jQuery] test

[hosemaria]

test

[jQuery] test for css selector capability?

[Geuis]

I'm working on a project where I need to detect if the browser
natively supports a given CSS selector.

For example, if I am using the selector 'ul li:first-child', this is
supported by IE7, FF, and Safari but not by IE6 and below. Is there a
way that I can test that selector to see if the current browser
supports it? A feature that returns a simple boolean status would be
awesome.

[jQuery] Test if BlockUI is blocking an element

[druffus]

Hello,

Is there a way to test if blockUI is currently blocking a specific
element?

I am doing this:

$('#middle_right').block({
message: this.loader_msg,
css:{
border: '2px solid #ddd',
backgroundColor:'#fff'
},
overlayCSS:{
backgroundColor:'#eee',
opacity:'0.6'
}
});

and want to create a function like this with jquery:

this.is_loading = function() {
if(document.getElementById('module_menu_loader').style.display
== 'block') {
return 'both';
} else if(document.getElementById
('content_loader').style.display == 'block') {
return 'single';
} else {
return false;
}
}

Thanks

[jQuery] test

[Lord Gustavo Miguel Angel]

[jQuery] Test if a variable is a jQuery object?

[Andy Matthews]

How can I test to see if something is a jQuery object, or a normal
JavaScript object?


andy

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[timothytoe]

Is there really a lot of code that relies on it? If there is, wouldn't
Chrome break on many more pages? I don't recall seeing any code that
assumes an order.

  --tt

On Sep 4, 1:32 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
> implicitly relies on this. You don't really expect programmers to read
> language specs, do you?
>
> Jörn
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Matt Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 4, 2:00 pm, Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The second one is a bug in V8 (or Chrome). It returns reversed
> >> enumeration order of keys if the object is a literal.
>
> > This is not a bug in V8. The order of keys is never guaranteed to be
> > in the order they are inserted or specified in a literal.
>
> > Matt Kruse

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[RobG]

On Sep 5, 6:32 am, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, but every other implementation does that,

No, they don't.  In Firerfox 2 and 3 (and perhaps in earlier versions)
properties added to the window object are returned in reverse
order[1], in Opera 7 properties added to native objects were returned
in alphabetical order.

> so a lot of code
> implicitly relies on this.

Then it is bad code.

> You don't really expect programmers to read
> language specs, do you?

Yes, though simply reading it cover-to-cover is pointless.  They
should at least know enough about it to be able to find, read and
understand relevant sections where required.

How programmers learn a language is up to them, but they should at
least be aware of such fundamental principles.


1. Some play code, try it in Firefox and some other browser:



  function foo(obj) {
var props = {alpha:'alpha', gamma:'gamma',
 delta:'delta', beta:'beta'};
for (var p in props) {
  obj[p] = props[p];
}
var x = [];
for (p in obj){
  if (p in props){
x.push(p);
  }
}
return x;
  }
  window.onload = function(){
document.getElementById('xx').innerHTML = foo(this).join('
');
  }



--
Rob

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Mike Alsup]

> Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
> implicitly relies on this. You don't really expect programmers to read
> language specs, do you?

But this gets to the very heart of the language - the Object .  And an
ECMAScript object is an unordered collection of properties.

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[timothytoe]

I don't think many read language specs, but I've heard over and over
(in books and online) that you can't rely on the order that you get
when you use "in" to set through keys. I thought that was fairly well
known. Nothing in the syntax hints that you'd get them in a certain
order.

However, obviously if one implementation stands alone, it's in the
interest of that vendor to homogenize.

And if everyone is going to end up with the same de facto behavior,
then that behavior should be put into the standard, at least as an
addendum.

  --tt



On Sep 4, 1:32 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
> implicitly relies on this. You don't really expect programmers to read
> language specs, do you?
>
> Jörn
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Matt Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 4, 2:00 pm, Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The second one is a bug in V8 (or Chrome). It returns reversed
> >> enumeration order of keys if the object is a literal.
>
> > This is not a bug in V8. The order of keys is never guaranteed to be
> > in the order they are inserted or specified in a literal.
>
> > Matt Kruse

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Jörn Zaefferer]

Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
implicitly relies on this. You don't really expect programmers to read
language specs, do you?

Jörn

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Matt Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2:00 pm, Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The second one is a bug in V8 (or Chrome). It returns reversed
>> enumeration order of keys if the object is a literal.
>
> This is not a bug in V8. The order of keys is never guaranteed to be
> in the order they are inserted or specified in a literal.
>
> Matt Kruse
>

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Matt Kruse]

On Sep 4, 2:00 pm, Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The second one is a bug in V8 (or Chrome). It returns reversed
> enumeration order of keys if the object is a literal.

This is not a bug in V8. The order of keys is never guaranteed to be
in the order they are inserted or specified in a literal.

Matt Kruse

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Feng]

core module failure is a bug in WebKit, and it is fixed in ToT, I
tested the Safari official release 3.1.2, it fails with the same
result, but passes on nightly build r36012.

The second one is a bug in V8 (or Chrome). It returns reversed
enumeration order of keys if the object is a literal.

Here is a reference to V8 bug:
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=6

var x = [a : 1, b :2];
for (p in x) print(p);

It prints out 'b' before 'a'.

var x = {};
x.a = 1;
x.b = 2;
for (p in x) print(p);

it prints out 'a' before 'b';

I will take a look at the code.

On Sep 2, 12:45 pm, Guyon  Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With all the buzz around the new javascript engine in Chrome, I
> decided to run the jquery testsuite (http://jquery.com/test/) on my
> 3 installed browsers (ff3, ie7 and chrome, on wixp sp3)
>
> ==
> IE7:
>
> Tests completed in 49734 milliseconds.
> 0 tests of 1270 failed.
>
> FF3:
>
> Tests completed in 31710 milliseconds.
> 0 tests of 1270 failed.
>
> Chrome:
>
> Tests completed in 28212 milliseconds.
> 2 tests of 1270 failed.
>
> ==
>
> Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
> a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
>
> - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
> - 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)
>
> I have really no experience interpreting these results, so I hope
> someone here can give me an explaination about these and what it means
> to me as a jQuery user.
>
> Regards,
>
> guyon

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Andy Matthews]

This is how Chrome reports itself:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML,
like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13

So you can see that the word Chrome is clearly in the UA string. 

-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steffan A. Cline
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:37 AM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser


on 9/3/08 7:19 AM, Andy Matthews at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> According to getclicky.com, Chrome already has an almost 3% market share:
> 
> getclicky.com/chrome/
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> On Behalf Of Rey Bango
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:01 AM
> To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
> 
> 
> It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only 
> browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from 
> Microsoft and force Microsoft back to the standards table.
> 
> Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.
> 
> Rey...
> 
> Bil Corry wrote:
>> 
>> Guy Fraser wrote on 9/3/2008 5:22 AM:
>>> I think everyone is missing the whole point of Chrome: It's designed 
>>> to kill MSIE on corporate networks - http://tinyurl.com/68lvhb
>> 
>> Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million 
>> Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either...
>> 
>> 
>> - Bil
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
I think that 3% is bloated. Not sure if it was here or another list but
someone posted that Chrome is sending the headers for AppleWebKit Safari. It
would seem google needs to change this so they can receive the actual due
credit rather than reap glory at Safari's expense.


Thanks

Steffan

---
T E L  6 0 2 . 7 9 3 . 0 0 1 4 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4 Steffan A.
Cline  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phoenix, Az
http://www.ExecuChoice.net  USA
AIM : SteffanC  ICQ : 57234309
YAHOO : Steffan_Cline   MSN : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GOOGLE: Steffan.Cline Lasso Partner Alliance Member
---

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Steffan A. Cline]

on 9/3/08 7:19 AM, Andy Matthews at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> According to getclicky.com, Chrome already has an almost 3% market share:
> 
> getclicky.com/chrome/
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Rey Bango
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:01 AM
> To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
> 
> 
> It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
> browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from
> Microsoft and force Microsoft back to the standards table.
> 
> Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.
> 
> Rey...
> 
> Bil Corry wrote:
>> 
>> Guy Fraser wrote on 9/3/2008 5:22 AM:
>>> I think everyone is missing the whole point of Chrome: It's designed
>>> to kill MSIE on corporate networks - http://tinyurl.com/68lvhb
>> 
>> Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million
>> Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either...
>> 
>> 
>> - Bil
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
I think that 3% is bloated. Not sure if it was here or another list but
someone posted that Chrome is sending the headers for AppleWebKit Safari. It
would seem google needs to change this so they can receive the actual due
credit rather than reap glory at Safari's expense.


Thanks

Steffan

---
T E L  6 0 2 . 7 9 3 . 0 0 1 4 | F A X  6 0 2 . 9 7 1 . 1 6 9 4
Steffan A. Cline  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phoenix, Az
http://www.ExecuChoice.net  USA
AIM : SteffanC  ICQ : 57234309
YAHOO : Steffan_Cline   MSN : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GOOGLE: Steffan.Cline Lasso Partner Alliance Member
---

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Ca-Phun Ung]

Guy Fraser wrote:
>
> I really don't think it will eat in to FF, Opera and Safari - eg, you're 
> not going to see Chrome running on Nintendo Wii, it's not going to be 
> the pre-installed browser on OS X and developers aren't going to give up 
> Firefox and all it's developer extensions over night.
>
>   
I'm certainly not giving up my Firefox extensions over night but it is 
inevitable that some eating (how little it may be) will occur across the 
board. Let's hope it's not a significant chunk ;)

-- Ca-Phun Ung
+ http://yelotofu.com

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Dana Woodman]

I guess well just have to wait and see which is best

On Sep 3, 2008, at 4:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I realized from this Paragraph
> JOhn said : "We already see TraceMonkey (under development for about  
> 2 months) performing better than V8 (under development for about 2  
> years)."
>
> maybe TranceMonkey it is going to be better that V8 but as you all  
> know it has it's own problems right now
>
> john Said  : "The biggest thing holding TraceMonkey back, at this  
> point, is its recursion tracing. As of this moment no tracing is  
> done across recursive calls (which puts TraceMonkey as being about  
> 10x slower than V8 at recursion). Once recursion tracing lands for  
> Firefox 3.1 I'll be sure to revisit the above results."
> Um it depends how you think .. everyone can pick what ever they  
> prefer ...
> I hope this was useful
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:14 AM, timothytoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>
> I read the linked article, and did not interpret it the way you did.
> Certainly John does not come right out and say that TraceMonkey is
> much better, and he probably knows that if he did, we'd take it with a
> grain of salt since he works for Mozilla. (Note, though, that John
> isn't on the TraceMonkey team as far as I can tell--I think he's
> plenty busy with his other duties.)
>
> I think he's excited by ALL the JS developments.
>
> On Sep 3, 4:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Dana Woodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
> > > So you're saying that since Jon "thinks" TraceMonkey is better  
> than V8
> > > (despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading  
> what you wrote
> > > wrong?
> >
> > > On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Dear folk ,for more information please check this Article which  
> John Resig
> > > performed
> > > 
> > >http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
> > > it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and  
> JOhn and his
> > > partners are working with TraceMonkey
> > > and developing it , he believe it is much better than V8 and  
> they will
> > > import TraceMonkey to firefox 3.2 right now in firefox 3.1  
> Tracemonkey is
> > > BUilt in but it is disabled ... so guys I think we have to check  
> our
> > > websites with CHrome and validate it 
> > > Regards Pedram
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Guy Fraser <  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Bil Corry wrote:
> > >> > My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied  
> to.  Guy
> > >> > Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on  
> corporate
> > >> > networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google  
> will also
> > >> > save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly  
> doesn't hurt
> > >> > either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting  
> that
> > >> > while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some  
> revenue,
> > >> > it may also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if  
> Google
> > >> > ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would  
> entice users
> > >> > to switch to Chrome.
> >
> > >> Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla  
> until at
> > >> least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was  
> announced recently.
> >
> > >>  From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their  
> needs
> > >> IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by  
> default on
> > >> intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die.
> >
> > >> With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices,  
> rather
> > >> than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong
> > >> incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and  
> remainder of
> > >> MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we  
> just
> > >> can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed.
> >
> > >> Guy
>
>
> >

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[pedramphp]

fore more information on TranceMonkey pleasecheck
http://ejohn.org/blog/tracemonkey/


On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:29 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I realized from this ParagraphJOhn said : "We already see TraceMonkey
> (under development for about 2 months) performing better than V8 (under
> development for about 2 years)."
>
> maybe TranceMonkey it is going to be better that V8 but as you all know it
> has it's own problems right now
>
> john Said  : "The biggest thing holding TraceMonkey back, at this point,
> is its recursion tracing. As of this moment no tracing is done across
> recursive calls (which puts TraceMonkey as being about 10x slower than V8 at
> recursion). Once recursion tracing lands for Firefox 3.1 I'll be sure to
> revisit the above results."
> Um it depends how you think .. everyone can pick what ever they prefer ...
> I hope this was useful
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:14 AM, timothytoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I read the linked article, and did not interpret it the way you did.
>> Certainly John does not come right out and say that TraceMonkey is
>> much better, and he probably knows that if he did, we'd take it with a
>> grain of salt since he works for Mozilla. (Note, though, that John
>> isn't on the TraceMonkey team as far as I can tell--I think he's
>> plenty busy with his other duties.)
>>
>> I think he's excited by ALL the JS developments.
>>
>> On Sep 3, 4:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Dana Woodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > So you're saying that since Jon "thinks" TraceMonkey is better than V8
>> > > (despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you
>> wrote
>> > > wrong?
>> >
>> > > On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dear folk ,for more information please check this Article which John
>> Resig
>> > > performed
>> > > 
>> > >http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
>> > > it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and
>> his
>> > > partners are working with TraceMonkey
>> > > and developing it , he believe it is much better than V8 and they will
>> > > import TraceMonkey to firefox 3.2 right now in firefox 3.1 Tracemonkey
>> is
>> > > BUilt in but it is disabled ... so guys I think we have to check our
>> > > websites with CHrome and validate it 
>> > > Regards Pedram
>> >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Guy Fraser < <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Bil Corry wrote:
>> > >> > My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.
>>  Guy
>> > >> > Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate
>> > >> > networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google will
>> also
>> > >> > save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't
>> hurt
>> > >> > either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that
>> > >> > while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some
>> revenue,
>> > >> > it may also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google
>> > >> > ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would entice
>> users
>> > >> > to switch to Chrome.
>> >
>> > >> Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla until at
>> > >> least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was announced
>> recently.
>> >
>> > >>  From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their needs
>> > >> IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by default
>> on
>> > >> intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die.
>> >
>> > >> With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices, rather
>> > >> than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong
>> > >> incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and remainder
>> of
>> > >> MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we just
>> > >> can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed.
>> >
>> > >> Guy
>>
>
>

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[pedramphp]

I realized from this ParagraphJOhn said : "We already see TraceMonkey (under
development for about 2 months) performing better than V8 (under development
for about 2 years)."

maybe TranceMonkey it is going to be better that V8 but as you all know it
has it's own problems right now

john Said  : "The biggest thing holding TraceMonkey back, at this point, is
its recursion tracing. As of this moment no tracing is done across recursive
calls (which puts TraceMonkey as being about 10x slower than V8 at
recursion). Once recursion tracing lands for Firefox 3.1 I'll be sure to
revisit the above results."
Um it depends how you think .. everyone can pick what ever they prefer ...
I hope this was useful

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:14 AM, timothytoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> I read the linked article, and did not interpret it the way you did.
> Certainly John does not come right out and say that TraceMonkey is
> much better, and he probably knows that if he did, we'd take it with a
> grain of salt since he works for Mozilla. (Note, though, that John
> isn't on the TraceMonkey team as far as I can tell--I think he's
> plenty busy with his other duties.)
>
> I think he's excited by ALL the JS developments.
>
> On Sep 3, 4:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Dana Woodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So you're saying that since Jon "thinks" TraceMonkey is better than V8
> > > (despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you
> wrote
> > > wrong?
> >
> > > On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Dear folk ,for more information please check this Article which John
> Resig
> > > performed
> > > 
> > >http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
> > > it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and
> his
> > > partners are working with TraceMonkey
> > > and developing it , he believe it is much better than V8 and they will
> > > import TraceMonkey to firefox 3.2 right now in firefox 3.1 Tracemonkey
> is
> > > BUilt in but it is disabled ... so guys I think we have to check our
> > > websites with CHrome and validate it 
> > > Regards Pedram
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Guy Fraser < <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Bil Corry wrote:
> > >> > My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.
>  Guy
> > >> > Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate
> > >> > networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also
> > >> > save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't
> hurt
> > >> > either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that
> > >> > while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some
> revenue,
> > >> > it may also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google
> > >> > ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would entice
> users
> > >> > to switch to Chrome.
> >
> > >> Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla until at
> > >> least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was announced
> recently.
> >
> > >>  From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their needs
> > >> IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by default
> on
> > >> intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die.
> >
> > >> With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices, rather
> > >> than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong
> > >> incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and remainder
> of
> > >> MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we just
> > >> can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed.
> >
> > >> Guy
>

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[timothytoe]

I read the linked article, and did not interpret it the way you did.
Certainly John does not come right out and say that TraceMonkey is
much better, and he probably knows that if he did, we'd take it with a
grain of salt since he works for Mozilla. (Note, though, that John
isn't on the TraceMonkey team as far as I can tell--I think he's
plenty busy with his other duties.)

I think he's excited by ALL the JS developments.

On Sep 3, 4:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Dana Woodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So you're saying that since Jon "thinks" TraceMonkey is better than V8
> > (despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you wrote
> > wrong?
>
> > On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Dear folk ,for more information please check this Article which John Resig
> > performed
> > 
> >http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
> > it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and his
> > partners are working with TraceMonkey
> > and developing it , he believe it is much better than V8 and they will
> > import TraceMonkey to firefox 3.2 right now in firefox 3.1 Tracemonkey is
> > BUilt in but it is disabled ... so guys I think we have to check our
> > websites with CHrome and validate it 
> > Regards Pedram
>
> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Guy Fraser < <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Bil Corry wrote:
> >> > My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.  Guy
> >> > Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate
> >> > networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also
> >> > save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't hurt
> >> > either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that
> >> > while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some revenue,
> >> > it may also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google
> >> > ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would entice users
> >> > to switch to Chrome.
>
> >> Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla until at
> >> least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was announced recently.
>
> >>  From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their needs
> >> IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by default on
> >> intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die.
>
> >> With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices, rather
> >> than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong
> >> incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and remainder of
> >> MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we just
> >> can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed.
>
> >> Guy

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Guy Fraser]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8

There are some bits of TraceMonkey that aren't yet complete - it's those 
bits that will tip the balance. There was a recent article on 
ajaxian.com about it:

http://ajaxian.com/archives/brendan-discusses-how-tracemonkey-is-climbing-faster-ruby-on-the-web-with-v8

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[pedramphp]

Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Dana Woodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So you're saying that since Jon "thinks" TraceMonkey is better than V8
> (despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you wrote
> wrong?
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Dear folk ,for more information please check this Article which John Resig
> performed
> 
> http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
> it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and his
> partners are working with TraceMonkey
> and developing it , he believe it is much better than V8 and they will
> import TraceMonkey to firefox 3.2 right now in firefox 3.1 Tracemonkey is
> BUilt in but it is disabled ... so guys I think we have to check our
> websites with CHrome and validate it 
> Regards Pedram
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Guy Fraser < <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Bil Corry wrote:
>> > My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.  Guy
>> > Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate
>> > networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also
>> > save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't hurt
>> > either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that
>> > while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some revenue,
>> > it may also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google
>> > ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would entice users
>> > to switch to Chrome.
>>
>> Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla until at
>> least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was announced recently.
>>
>>  From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their needs
>> IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by default on
>> intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die.
>>
>> With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices, rather
>> than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong
>> incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and remainder of
>> MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we just
>> can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed.
>>
>> Guy
>>
>
>
>
>

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Dana Woodman]

So you're saying that since Jon "thinks" TraceMonkey is better than V8  
(despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you  
wrote wrong?

On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Dear folk ,
> for more information please check this Article which John Resig  
> performed
> http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
> it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn  
> and his partners are working with TraceMonkey
>
>
> and developing it , he believe it is much better than V8 and they  
> will import TraceMonkey to firefox 3.2 right now in firefox 3.1  
> Tracemonkey is BUilt in but it is disabled ... so guys I think we  
> have to check our websites with CHrome and validate it 
> Regards Pedram
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Guy Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>
> Bil Corry wrote:
> > My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.   
> Guy
> > Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate
> > networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also
> > save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't  
> hurt
> > either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that
> > while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some  
> revenue,
> > it may also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google
> > ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would entice  
> users
> > to switch to Chrome.
>
> Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla until at
> least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was announced  
> recently.
>
>  From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their needs
> IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by  
> default on
> intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die.
>
> With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices, rather
> than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong
> incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and  
> remainder of
> MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we just
> can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed.
>
> Guy
>
>
> >

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Bil Corry]

Guy Fraser wrote on 9/3/2008 5:22 AM: 
I think everyone is missing the whole point of Chrome: It's designed to 
kill MSIE on corporate networks - http://tinyurl.com/68lvhb


Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million Google pays 
Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either...


- Bil

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Rey Bango]

Please do not double post your message.

Rey
jQuery Project

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Dear folk ,
for more information please check this Article which John Resig performed
http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and 
his partners are working with TraceMonkey
and developing it , he believe it is much better than V8 and they will 
import TraceMonkey to firefox 3.2 right now in firefox 3.1 Tracemonkey 
is BUilt in but it is disabled ... so guys I think we have to check our 
websites with CHrome and validate it 

Regards Pedram

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Guy Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:



Bil Corry wrote:
 > My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.  Guy
 > Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate
 > networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also
 > save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't
hurt
 > either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that
 > while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some revenue,
 > it may also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google
 > ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would entice
users
 > to switch to Chrome.

Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla until at
least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was announced
recently.

 From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their needs
IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by default on
intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die.

With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices, rather
than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong
incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and remainder of
MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we just
can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed.

Guy

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[pedramphp]

Dear folk ,for more information please check this Article which John Resig
performed
http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and his
partners are working with TraceMonkey
and developing it , he believe it is much better than V8 and they will
import TraceMonkey to firefox 3.2 right now in firefox 3.1 Tracemonkey is
BUilt in but it is disabled ... so guys I think we have to check our
websites with CHrome and validate it 
Regards Pedram

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Guy Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Bil Corry wrote:
> > My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.  Guy
> > Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate
> > networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also
> > save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't hurt
> > either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that
> > while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some revenue,
> > it may also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google
> > ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would entice users
> > to switch to Chrome.
>
> Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla until at
> least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was announced recently.
>
>  From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their needs
> IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by default on
> intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die.
>
> With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices, rather
> than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong
> incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and remainder of
> MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we just
> can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed.
>
> Guy
>

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[D. Woodman]

Yes, I was about to say "What plugin architecture???" hhaha.

Thats for the link though, its good to see that they are actually planning
it, even though I was pretty sure they would anyways.

Cheers,
Dana

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ca-Phun Ung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Ca-Phun Ung wrote:
> >
> > I totally agree, a plugin acrhitecture is a must! And it does exist in
> > Chrome! Plugins are referred to quite a bit in this excellent comic
> > strip [1] by Scott McCloud.
> >
> >
> Ah, just correcting myself (I hope that's allowed here :)
>
> "As for plugins, Chrome will support plugins like Flash and PDF but it
> doesn't have extensions like those found in Firefox. Google does,
> however, plan to provide an extension API in the future."
>
> Source:
> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/02/google-officially-announces-chrome/
>
> The comic strip refers to plugins like Flash etc not what I stipulated
> them to be previously, i.e. extensions. But they are coming by all means!
>
> -- Ca-Phun Ung
> + http://yelotofu.com
>
> >
>


-- 
Dana Woodman
http://www.organixdesign.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Guy Fraser]

Bil Corry wrote:
> My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.  Guy 
> Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate 
> networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also 
> save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't hurt 
> either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that 
> while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some revenue, 
> it may also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google 
> ever offers Chrome-only features or services, which would entice users 
> to switch to Chrome.

Google have confirmed that they will be working with Mozilla until at 
least 2011 - can't remember where I read it but it was announced recently.

 From google's perspective, any modern browser will serve their needs 
IMHO - however, MSIE (including the now "not standard mode by default on 
intranets any more" version 8 *sigh*) MUST die.

With M$ playing around with unwanted features like web slices, rather 
than making a browser that actually works, Google have a strong 
incentive to kill off MSIE from the corporate networks (and remainder of 
MSIE on home computers) in any way they can. As an industry, we just 
can't move forward (properly) until MSIE is destroyed.

Guy

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Guy Fraser]

Ca-Phun Ung wrote:
> Chrome is pretty exciting as it's not just another browser but one that 
> sets to up-the-bar. I think it definitely gives other vendors food for 
> thought. As to whether it would kill IE? I'm sure it will take some of 
> IE's share but only after exhausting FF, Opera and Safari's market... I 
> expected this list to be more excited about V8 rather than Chrome itself ;)
>   

I really don't think it will eat in to FF, Opera and Safari - eg, you're 
not going to see Chrome running on Nintendo Wii, it's not going to be 
the pre-installed browser on OS X and developers aren't going to give up 
Firefox and all it's developer extensions over night.

I really do think it's targeted at corporate intranets and home users 
who won't switch from MSIE.

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Andy Matthews]

They started with a brand new codebase. No bloat from stuff that's unused or
inefficient.

  _  

From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:38 PM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser


I wonder how come google load pages half the time that firefox 3.0 does ...
thats so interesting.. 
right now I use firefox for its firebug and plugins and I use safari 3
because it takes small memory...
it is amazing that CHrone has 3% of hits in the internet

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[timothytoe]

That was me. I was up all night trying every site I could think of.

On Sep 3, 1:38 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I wonder how come google load pages half the time that firefox 3.0 does ...
> thats so interesting..right now I use firefox for its firebug and plugins
> and I use safari 3 because it takes small memory...
> it is amazing that CHrone has 3% of hits in the internet

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[pedramphp]

I wonder how come google load pages half the time that firefox 3.0 does ...
thats so interesting..right now I use firefox for its firebug and plugins
and I use safari 3 because it takes small memory...
it is amazing that CHrone has 3% of hits in the internet

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Karl Swedberg]

Chrome also has its own DOM viewer/console. To use it, right-click  
somewhere in the document and choose "Inspect Element." Not sure how  
it compares to Firebug Lite, but it's another option.


--Karl


Karl Swedberg
www.englishrules.com
www.learningjquery.com




On Sep 2, 2008, at 10:08 PM, timothytoe wrote:



OK. I think I see.

By the way, I just did some light debugging in Chrome with Firebug
Lite. You can poke around in the DOM, which is nice.

If anyone wants to try it, the best way to do it is with the latest
Firebug Lite (the one that actually FEELS like Firebug, based off the
old Pi debugger). Run it as a bookmarklet.

javascript:var
%20firebug 
=document.createElement('script');firebug.setAttribute('src','http://

getfirebug.com/releases/lite/1.2/firebug-lite-
compressed.js');document.body.appendChild(firebug);(function()
{if(window.pi&&window.firebug)
{firebug.init();}else{setTimeout(arguments.callee);}})
();void(firebug);

On Sep 2, 4:52 pm, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From timothytoe
I'm not 100% sure, but I think you misread Matt's post. Matt
seemed to be saying the same thing you are--the order of keys
should not be relied upon.


If you take out Matt's post, the context for my reply may be more  
clear...



From: Guy Fraser
I've never seen an ECMA script compiler (JS, AS, etc)
that doesn't iterate through named references in the
expected order?

From: Michael Geary
But there is no "expected order" in a for..in loop. Any
decent JavaScript reference book, such as Flanagan's,
should point this out...

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Rey Bango]

Gotcha. My apologies for misunderstanding the context that you wrote the 
email in.


Rey...

Bil Corry wrote:


Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2008 1:09 PM:

I was replying to your comment here:

"Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million 
Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either... "


Did I misread this or was it said in a context that I missed?


My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.  Guy 
Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate 
networks."  If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also 
save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't hurt 
either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that while 
it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some revenue, it may 
also be intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google ever offers 
Chrome-only features or services, which would entice users to switch to 
Chrome.


And for the record, my comment was never intended to champion ways to 
"kill Mozilla."  Apologies if that's how it read.


- Bil

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Ca-Phun Ung]

Dana wrote:
> The lack of a plugin system is a major drawback that will hinder
> adoption dramatically, especially among tech crowds. I have tried out
> Chrome and admit that I am impressed with it's speed, simplicity and
> specs, But I will not be able to even think about using it as a
> primary browser till a plugin architecture gets developed and a plugin
> community gets built. I am fairly certain this will happen down the
> road, unless of course the corporate intra net thing is true. I guess
> we will see...
>
>
>   
I totally agree, a plugin acrhitecture is a must! And it does exist in 
Chrome! Plugins are referred to quite a bit in this excellent comic 
strip [1] by Scott McCloud.

Mozilla have set the bar very high with their plugins system and 
community surrounding it so Google has much work to do in that area. So 
it is a matter of time and only time will tell...

[1] http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html

-- Ca-Phun Ung
+ http://yelotofu.com

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Bil Corry]

Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2008 1:09 PM: 

I was replying to your comment here:

"Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million 
Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either... "


Did I misread this or was it said in a context that I missed?


My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to.  Guy Fraser wrote that 
Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate networks."  If that is the case, 
then the fact that Google will also save money from the conversion of Firefox users 
certainly doesn't hurt either (from Google's perspective).  I was subtly suggesting that 
while it may be accidental that Google is saving itself some revenue, it may also be 
intentional.  It'll be interesting to see if Google ever offers Chrome-only features or 
services, which would entice users to switch to Chrome.

And for the record, my comment was never intended to champion ways to "kill 
Mozilla."  Apologies if that's how it read.

- Bil

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Ca-Phun Ung]

Ca-Phun Ung wrote:
>
> I totally agree, a plugin acrhitecture is a must! And it does exist in 
> Chrome! Plugins are referred to quite a bit in this excellent comic 
> strip [1] by Scott McCloud.
>
>   
Ah, just correcting myself (I hope that's allowed here :)

"As for plugins, Chrome will support plugins like Flash and PDF but it 
doesn’t have extensions like those found in Firefox. Google does, 
however, plan to provide an extension API in the future."

Source: 
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/02/google-officially-announces-chrome/

The comic strip refers to plugins like Flash etc not what I stipulated 
them to be previously, i.e. extensions. But they are coming by all means!

-- Ca-Phun Ung
+ http://yelotofu.com

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Dana]

The lack of a plugin system is a major drawback that will hinder
adoption dramatically, especially among tech crowds. I have tried out
Chrome and admit that I am impressed with it's speed, simplicity and
specs, But I will not be able to even think about using it as a
primary browser till a plugin architecture gets developed and a plugin
community gets built. I am fairly certain this will happen down the
road, unless of course the corporate intra net thing is true. I guess
we will see...

On Sep 3, 7:51 am, Ca-Phun Ung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chrome is pretty exciting as it's not just another browser but one that
> sets to up-the-bar. I think it definitely gives other vendors food for
> thought. As to whether it would kill IE? I'm sure it will take some of
> IE's share but only after exhausting FF, Opera and Safari's market... I
> expected this list to be more excited about V8 rather than Chrome itself ;)
>
> -- Ca-Phun Ung
> +http://yelotofu.com

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Rey Bango]

Hi Bill,

I was replying to your comment here:

"Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million 
Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either... "


Did I misread this or was it said in a context that I missed?

Rey...

Bil Corry wrote:


Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2008 9:01 AM:

Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.


If your comment is directed to me, then you've misunderstood.  I use 
Firefox.  I haven't installed Chrome, nor do I plan to.



- Bil

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Bil Corry]

Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2008 9:01 AM: 

Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.


If your comment is directed to me, then you've misunderstood.  I use Firefox.  
I haven't installed Chrome, nor do I plan to.


- Bil

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Ca-Phun Ung]

Chrome is pretty exciting as it's not just another browser but one that 
sets to up-the-bar. I think it definitely gives other vendors food for 
thought. As to whether it would kill IE? I'm sure it will take some of 
IE's share but only after exhausting FF, Opera and Safari's market... I 
expected this list to be more excited about V8 rather than Chrome itself ;)

-- Ca-Phun Ung
+ http://yelotofu.com

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[timothytoe]

OK. I think I see.

By the way, I just did some light debugging in Chrome with Firebug
Lite. You can poke around in the DOM, which is nice.

If anyone wants to try it, the best way to do it is with the latest
Firebug Lite (the one that actually FEELS like Firebug, based off the
old Pi debugger). Run it as a bookmarklet.

javascript:var
%20firebug=document.createElement('script');firebug.setAttribute('src','http://
getfirebug.com/releases/lite/1.2/firebug-lite-
compressed.js');document.body.appendChild(firebug);(function()
{if(window.pi&&window.firebug)
{firebug.init();}else{setTimeout(arguments.callee);}})
();void(firebug);

On Sep 2, 4:52 pm, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From timothytoe
> > I'm not 100% sure, but I think you misread Matt's post. Matt
> > seemed to be saying the same thing you are--the order of keys
> > should not be relied upon.
>
> If you take out Matt's post, the context for my reply may be more clear...
>
> > > From: Guy Fraser
> > > I've never seen an ECMA script compiler (JS, AS, etc)
> > > that doesn't iterate through named references in the
> > > expected order?
> > From: Michael Geary
> > But there is no "expected order" in a for..in loop. Any
> > decent JavaScript reference book, such as Flanagan's,
> > should point this out...

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Rey Bango]

I can see it growing for now. It's new and the whole Net is buzzing 
about it. Not surprising at all.


Rey...

Andy Matthews wrote:

According to getclicky.com, Chrome already has an almost 3% market share:

getclicky.com/chrome/ 


-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rey Bango
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:01 AM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser


It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from
Microsoft and force Microsoft back to the standards table.

Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.

Rey...

Bil Corry wrote:

Guy Fraser wrote on 9/3/2008 5:22 AM:
I think everyone is missing the whole point of Chrome: It's designed 
to kill MSIE on corporate networks - http://tinyurl.com/68lvhb
Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million 
Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either...



- Bil

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Rey Bango]

That's a key thing. Firefox has a vast ecosystem of extensions (approx. 
5,000+ add-ons).


And in the interest of full disclosure,I work for Mozilla and I help 
manage Mozilla's Firefox extensions site, http://addons.mozilla.org. :D


Rey...

Giovanni Battista Lenoci wrote:


Rey Bango ha scritto:


Yep. You probably got that from TechCrunch and I tend to agree with 
their comments that it's a spike due to the "newness" of the browser 
and can expect to see that figure drop as people go back to using 
their standard browsers.


Rey
I've tried chrome, very nice toy and for sure it will cause nightmare to 
all browsers vendors, but can we live without firefox extensions ?


For now I can't change my habits :-)

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Andy Matthews]

According to getclicky.com, Chrome already has an almost 3% market share:

getclicky.com/chrome/ 

-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rey Bango
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:01 AM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser


It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from
Microsoft and force Microsoft back to the standards table.

Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.

Rey...

Bil Corry wrote:
> 
> Guy Fraser wrote on 9/3/2008 5:22 AM:
>> I think everyone is missing the whole point of Chrome: It's designed 
>> to kill MSIE on corporate networks - http://tinyurl.com/68lvhb
> 
> Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million 
> Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either...
> 
> 
> - Bil
> 
> 

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Giovanni Battista Lenoci]

Rey Bango ha scritto:


Yep. You probably got that from TechCrunch and I tend to agree with 
their comments that it's a spike due to the "newness" of the browser 
and can expect to see that figure drop as people go back to using 
their standard browsers.


Rey
I've tried chrome, very nice toy and for sure it will cause nightmare to 
all browsers vendors, but can we live without firefox extensions ?


For now I can't change my habits :-)

--
gianiaz.net - web solutions
p.le bertacchi 66, 23100 sondrio (so) - italy
+39 347 7196482 

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Rey Bango]

It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only 
browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from 
Microsoft and force Microsoft back to the standards table.


Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.

Rey...

Bil Corry wrote:


Guy Fraser wrote on 9/3/2008 5:22 AM:
I think everyone is missing the whole point of Chrome: It's designed 
to kill MSIE on corporate networks - http://tinyurl.com/68lvhb


Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million Google 
pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either...



- Bil

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Rey Bango]

Yep. You probably got that from TechCrunch and I tend to agree with 
their comments that it's a spike due to the "newness" of the browser and 
can expect to see that figure drop as people go back to using their 
standard browsers.


Rey

Andy Matthews wrote:

According to a site called GetClicky, Chrome already has 2.8% market share:

http://getclicky.com/chrome/

 


-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Kruse
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:49 PM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser


On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon  Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite 
a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:

- 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)


This looks like a bug in Chrome to me. It doesn't escape > characters when
inserting text nodes. I would have to check the specs to be sure that
escaping of > is required.


- 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)


This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.

The code in param() calls:
for ( var j in a )
and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same order
they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be made, so the
test should be changed to allow for the returned string to be in arbitrary
key order.

Otherwise it's great to see that everything else passes! Surely this will be
a browser that will gain user share at some point, IMO, and it's better to
be ahead of the curve than playing catch-up.

Matt Kruse

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Andy Matthews]

Makes sense because Chrome is based on WebKit just like Safari. 

-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of timothytoe
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:49 PM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser


That sounds suspiciously like what Safari does in some cases:

http://dreaminginjavascript.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/a-challenge/

On Sep 2, 2:49 pm, Matt Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon  Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and 
> > quite a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
> > - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
>
> This looks like a bug in Chrome to me. It doesn't escape > characters 
> when inserting text nodes. I would have to check the specs to be sure 
> that escaping of > is required.
>
> > - 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)
>
> This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
>
> The code in param() calls:
>     for ( var j in a )
> and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same 
> order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be 
> made, so the test should be changed to allow for the returned string 
> to be in arbitrary key order.
>
> Otherwise it's great to see that everything else passes! Surely this 
> will be a browser that will gain user share at some point, IMO, and 
> it's better to be ahead of the curve than playing catch-up.
>
> Matt Kruse

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Andy Matthews]

According to a site called GetClicky, Chrome already has 2.8% market share:

http://getclicky.com/chrome/

 

-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Kruse
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:49 PM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser


On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon  Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite 
> a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
> - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)

This looks like a bug in Chrome to me. It doesn't escape > characters when
inserting text nodes. I would have to check the specs to be sure that
escaping of > is required.

> - 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)

This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.

The code in param() calls:
for ( var j in a )
and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same order
they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be made, so the
test should be changed to allow for the returned string to be in arbitrary
key order.

Otherwise it's great to see that everything else passes! Surely this will be
a browser that will gain user share at some point, IMO, and it's better to
be ahead of the curve than playing catch-up.

Matt Kruse

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Guy Fraser]

Matt Kruse wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon  Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
>> a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
>> - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
>> 

I think everyone is missing the whole point of Chrome: It's designed to 
kill MSIE on corporate networks - http://tinyurl.com/68lvhb

Guy

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[timothytoe]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think you misread Matt's post. Matt seemed to
be saying the same thing you are--the order of keys should not be
relied upon.

On Sep 2, 4:26 pm, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Matt Kruse wrote:
>
> > > This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
>
> > > The code in param() calls:
> > >     for ( var j in a )
> > > and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same
> > > order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be
> > > made, so the test should be changed to allow for the
> > > returned string to be in arbitrary key order.
> > From: Guy Fraser
>
> > I've never seen an ECMA script compiler (JS, AS, etc) that
> > doesn't iterate through named references in the expected order?
>
> But there is no "expected order" in a for..in loop. Any decent JavaScript
> reference book, such as Flanagan's, should point this out.
>
> Of course, you could make the same argument that I made for the text node
> issue, that too much code depends on this and they have to fix it. But I
> think given their architecture for property lookups, it may not be possible.
> And I would hope that not too much code does depend on it anyway.
>
> -Mike

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[timothytoe]

I have a very large app that works perfectly in Chrome (with lots of
jQuery and jQuery plugs), so the omens are good. One computationally
intensive bit takes 14 seconds in FF3 and 7 in Chrome. Amazing.

On Sep 2, 12:45 pm, Guyon  Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With all the buzz around the new javascript engine in Chrome, I
> decided to run the jquery testsuite (http://jquery.com/test/) on my
> 3 installed browsers (ff3, ie7 and chrome, on wixp sp3)
>
> ==
> IE7:
>
> Tests completed in 49734 milliseconds.
> 0 tests of 1270 failed.
>
> FF3:
>
> Tests completed in 31710 milliseconds.
> 0 tests of 1270 failed.
>
> Chrome:
>
> Tests completed in 28212 milliseconds.
> 2 tests of 1270 failed.
>
> ==
>
> Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
> a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
>
> - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
> - 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)
>
> I have really no experience interpreting these results, so I hope
> someone here can give me an explaination about these and what it means
> to me as a jQuery user.
>
> Regards,
>
> guyon

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Michael Geary]

> From timothytoe
> I'm not 100% sure, but I think you misread Matt's post. Matt 
> seemed to be saying the same thing you are--the order of keys 
> should not be relied upon.

If you take out Matt's post, the context for my reply may be more clear...

> > From: Guy Fraser
> > I've never seen an ECMA script compiler (JS, AS, etc)
> > that doesn't iterate through named references in the
> > expected order?

> From: Michael Geary
> But there is no "expected order" in a for..in loop. Any
> decent JavaScript reference book, such as Flanagan's,
> should point this out...

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Michael Geary]

> > Matt Kruse wrote:
> >
> > This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
> >
> > The code in param() calls:
> > for ( var j in a )
> > and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same 
> > order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be 
> > made, so the test should be changed to allow for the 
> > returned string to be in arbitrary key order.

> From: Guy Fraser
> 
> I've never seen an ECMA script compiler (JS, AS, etc) that 
> doesn't iterate through named references in the expected order?

But there is no "expected order" in a for..in loop. Any decent JavaScript
reference book, such as Flanagan's, should point this out.

Of course, you could make the same argument that I made for the text node
issue, that too much code depends on this and they have to fix it. But I
think given their architecture for property lookups, it may not be possible.
And I would hope that not too much code does depend on it anyway.

-Mike

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[timothytoe]

That sounds suspiciously like what Safari does in some cases:

http://dreaminginjavascript.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/a-challenge/

On Sep 2, 2:49 pm, Matt Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon  Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
> > a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
> > - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
>
> This looks like a bug in Chrome to me. It doesn't escape > characters
> when inserting text nodes. I would have to check the specs to be sure
> that escaping of > is required.
>
> > - 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)
>
> This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
>
> The code in param() calls:
>     for ( var j in a )
> and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same
> order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be
> made, so the test should be changed to allow for the returned string
> to be in arbitrary key order.
>
> Otherwise it's great to see that everything else passes! Surely this
> will be a browser that will gain user share at some point, IMO, and
> it's better to be ahead of the curve than playing catch-up.
>
> Matt Kruse

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Guy Fraser]

Matt Kruse wrote:
> This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
>
> The code in param() calls:
> for ( var j in a )
> and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same
> order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be
> made, so the test should be changed to allow for the returned string
> to be in arbitrary key order.
>   

I've never seen an ECMA script compiler (JS, AS, etc) that doesn't 
iterate through named references in the expected order?

Guy

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Matt Kruse]

On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon  Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
> a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
> - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)

This looks like a bug in Chrome to me. It doesn't escape > characters
when inserting text nodes. I would have to check the specs to be sure
that escaping of > is required.

> - 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)

This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.

The code in param() calls:
for ( var j in a )
and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same
order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be
made, so the test should be changed to allow for the returned string
to be in arbitrary key order.

Otherwise it's great to see that everything else passes! Surely this
will be a browser that will gain user share at some point, IMO, and
it's better to be ahead of the curve than playing catch-up.

Matt Kruse

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Rey Bango]

To be honest (and plz don't take it the wrong way) but it means 
absolutely nothing at this point as Chrome is still very beta and has 
only been out for 1 day.


We will certainly support Chrome once it gets to a point where it's in 
regular use but these issues are expected in a new product and trying to 
chase them down right now, when Chrome is a moving target, isn't 
something to focus on.


Let's be patient, definitely keep an eye on things and wait until Chrome 
 actually stabilizes a bit.


Rey
jQuery Team

Guyon Morée wrote:

Hi,

With all the buzz around the new javascript engine in Chrome, I
decided to run the jquery testsuite ( http://jquery.com/test/ ) on my
3 installed browsers (ff3, ie7 and chrome, on wixp sp3)

==
IE7:

Tests completed in 49734 milliseconds.
0 tests of 1270 failed.


FF3:

Tests completed in 31710 milliseconds.
0 tests of 1270 failed.

Chrome:

Tests completed in 28212 milliseconds.
2 tests of 1270 failed.

==


Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:

- 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
- 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)


I have really no experience interpreting these results, so I hope
someone here can give me an explaination about these and what it means
to me as a jQuery user.

Regards,

guyon

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Guyon Morée]

I apologize for submitting this twice

[jQuery] jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Guyon Morée]

Hi,

With all the buzz around the new javascript engine in Chrome, I
decided to run the jquery testsuite ( http://jquery.com/test/ ) on my
3 installed browsers (ff3, ie7 and chrome, on wixp sp3)

==
IE7:

Tests completed in 49734 milliseconds.
0 tests of 1270 failed.


FF3:

Tests completed in 31710 milliseconds.
0 tests of 1270 failed.

Chrome:

Tests completed in 28212 milliseconds.
2 tests of 1270 failed.

==


Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:

- 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
- 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)


I have really no experience interpreting these results, so I hope
someone here can give me an explaination about these and what it means
to me as a jQuery user.

Regards,

guyon

[jQuery] jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser

[Guyon Morée]

Hi,

With all the buzz around the new javascript engine in Chrome, I
decided to run the jquery testsuite ( http://jquery.com/test/ ) on my
3 installed browsers (ff3, ie7 and chrome, on wixp sp3)

==
IE7:

Tests completed in 49734 milliseconds.
0 tests of 1270 failed.


FF3:

Tests completed in 31710 milliseconds.
0 tests of 1270 failed.

Chrome:

Tests completed in 28212 milliseconds.
2 tests of 1270 failed.

==


Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:

- 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
- 112: ajax module: jQuery.param() (1, 3, 4)


I have really no experience interpreting these results, so I hope
someone here can give me an explaination about these and what it means
to me as a jQuery user.

Regards,

guyon

[jQuery] Re: Safari 2.0.4 not passing the jQuery test

[Abba . Bryant]

I believe you misinterpreted the statement by John.
The *entire* test suite passes in Safari. To overcome the memory
issues they need to break the test suite into multiple smaller sets of
tests and run those. If the entire suite is run it causes Safari to
crash due to the applications memory management problems.

On Jun 22, 6:29 am, Jeff Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand Safari's limitations, but saying it's compatible sets an
> expectation that it (all of it) will work.
>
> I consistently had Safari crash when trying to use the html() and
> replaceWith() functions. If you're aware of Safari's issues and only
> run the test suite in pieces, then it'd be nice if you could publish
> what the pieces are so that we (the jQuery using public) know what we
> should be looking out for.
>
> Thanks for the reply, even if we disagree on "compatible".  :-)
> Jeff
>
> On Jun 19, 9:43 am, "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jeff -
>
> > Safari2 has serious memory issues that are impossible to work around
> > - simply loading and executing too much JavaScript will cause it to
> > crash (as you see with the test suite). We do run the test suite
> > againstSafari2 but in pieces to verify that it works as intended.
> > Yes, we still supportSafari2.
>
> > --John
>
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Jeff Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I'm working on a site and the js is crashingSafari2.0.4, so I went
> > > back to check the compatibility page and it says it's supported. I ran
> > > the test page (http://jquery.com/test/) inSafari2.0.4 multiple
> > > times and it crashed EVERY time BUT at different places.
>
> > > So...my question is, is jQuery really compatible withSafari2.0.4 or
> > > should it be taken off the list of compatibility? In which case I'm a
> > > little screwed.

[jQuery] Re: Safari 2.0.4 not passing the jQuery test

[Jeff Kenny]

I understand Safari's limitations, but saying it's compatible sets an
expectation that it (all of it) will work.

I consistently had Safari crash when trying to use the html() and
replaceWith() functions. If you're aware of Safari's issues and only
run the test suite in pieces, then it'd be nice if you could publish
what the pieces are so that we (the jQuery using public) know what we
should be looking out for.

Thanks for the reply, even if we disagree on "compatible".  :-)
Jeff

On Jun 19, 9:43 am, "John Resig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff -
>
> Safari2 has serious memory issues that are impossible to work around
> - simply loading and executing too much JavaScript will cause it to
> crash (as you see with the test suite). We do run the test suite
> againstSafari2 but in pieces to verify that it works as intended.
> Yes, we still supportSafari2.
>
> --John
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Jeff Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm working on a site and the js is crashingSafari2.0.4, so I went
> > back to check the compatibility page and it says it's supported. I ran
> > the test page (http://jquery.com/test/) inSafari2.0.4 multiple
> > times and it crashed EVERY time BUT at different places.
>
> > So...my question is, is jQuery really compatible withSafari2.0.4 or
> > should it be taken off the list of compatibility? In which case I'm a
> > little screwed.

[jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite and jsUnit compatibility

[fuzziman]

thanks for the post. i love the idea of having tests in the same module using
the same setup and teardown, great idea.

Noticed a glitch though. You'll need to call jqUnit.module(this.moduleName)
just before jqUnit.test().
Otherwise, you end up with whatever module name was last called, and not the
associated module name (e.g. if you create module1 and module2 first, then
tests afterwards, all tests will say module2)


Colin Clark-2 wrote:
> 
> ... I've attached a patch to testrunner.js, which moves all  
> its functions into a closure for privacy and exposes the public test  
> API within a namespace called "jqUnit." This will help avoid conflicts  
> in the global namespace...
> 

This is an interesting one. Since QUnit's original intent was to test the
core of jQuery, testrunner.js can only use vanilla javascript. I think its a
great idea though, and it would be an easy thing for the jquery team to
build another version as a plugin, and would be another thing to spread the
adoption of QUnit.

to the jquery team: QUnit is great in that can be easily incorporated into
the enterprise build process, and one of the few JS unit testing frameworks
with active development these days. but if you really want QUnit to have a
greater adoption, it should really be released as an offical plugin, and
include xunit assertions and namespacing.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-test-suite-and-jsUnit-compatibility-tp15882865s27240p18045595.html
Sent from the jQuery General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[jQuery] Re: Safari 2.0.4 not passing the jQuery test

[John Resig]

Jeff -

Safari 2 has serious memory issues that are impossible to work around
- simply loading and executing too much JavaScript will cause it to
crash (as you see with the test suite). We do run the test suite
against Safari 2 but in pieces to verify that it works as intended.
Yes, we still support Safari 2.

--John


On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Jeff Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm working on a site and the js is crashing Safari 2.0.4, so I went
> back to check the compatibility page and it says it's supported. I ran
> the test page ( http://jquery.com/test/ ) in Safari 2.0.4 multiple
> times and it crashed EVERY time BUT at different places.
>
> So...my question is, is jQuery really compatible with Safari 2.0.4 or
> should it be taken off the list of compatibility? In which case I'm a
> little screwed.
>

[jQuery] Safari 2.0.4 not passing the jQuery test

[Jeff Kenny]

I'm working on a site and the js is crashing Safari 2.0.4, so I went
back to check the compatibility page and it says it's supported. I ran
the test page ( http://jquery.com/test/ ) in Safari 2.0.4 multiple
times and it crashed EVERY time BUT at different places.

So...my question is, is jQuery really compatible with Safari 2.0.4 or
should it be taken off the list of compatibility? In which case I'm a
little screwed.

[jQuery] jQuery test suite and jsUnit compatibility

[Colin Clark]

Hi all,

On the Fluid Project, we have been using Edward Hieatt's jsUnit 
(http://www.jsunit.net/ 
) for unit testing all of our code. A number of problems--including  
the inability to use Firebug to debug failing tests--caused us to look  
elsewhere for a less intrusive JavaScript testing framework.

The jQuery testing suite is great! I've ported all of my tests over to  
it, and have been really happy with the results.  Along with this,  
I've made some simple extensions to the jQuery testing suite (which  
I've started calling "jqUnit" for convenience) that I wanted to share  
with the wider community and get your feedback.

First of all, I've attached a patch to testrunner.js, which moves all  
its functions into a closure for privacy and exposes the public test  
API within a namespace called "jqUnit." This will help avoid conflicts  
in the global namespace. Since I pass $ in as an argument, it also  
ensures that we don't have any problems in noConflicts mode.

This patch isn't an example of beautiful refactoring, but I wanted to  
favour clarity--if people find this interesting, I can clean up the  
code and indenting.

Secondly, I've written a number of adaptor functions to provide  
compatibility for my old jsUnit tests. These provide xUnit-style  
asserts, and are just wrappers around the underlying jQuery assert  
functions such as ok(). Perhaps these are useful for others who are  
porting from jsUnit?

Lastly, I've added support for setUp() and tearDown() functions which  
get run before and after each test. I've created a simple object  
called TestCase. Its constructor takes three arguments: the module's  
name, your setUp function, and your tearDown function.

Is this useful to anyone?

Colin



testrunner.js.patch
Description: Binary data
  var jqUnit = jqUnit || {};

(function ($) {
var jsUnitCompat = {
assertEquals: function (msg, expected, actual) {
jqUnit.equals (actual, expected, msg);
},

assertTrue: function (msg, expected) {
jqUnit.ok (expected, msg);
},

assertFalse: function (msg, expected) {
jqUnit.ok (!expected, msg);
},

assertUndefined: function (msg, expected) {
jqUnit.equals ((typeof expected), 'undefined', msg);
},

assertNotUndefined: function (msg, expected) {
jqUnit.ok (!(typeof expected === 'undefined'), msg);
},

assertNull: function (msg, expected) {
jqUnit.equals (expected, null, msg);
},

assertNotNull: function (msg, expected) {
jqUnit.ok (!(expected === null), msg);
}
};

// Mix these compatibility functions into the jqUnit namespace.
$.extend(jqUnit, jsUnitCompat);

// TestCase object
function TestCase (moduleName, setUpFn, tearDownFn) {
this.moduleName = moduleName;
this.setUp = setUpFn || null;
this.tearDown = tearDownFn || null;

jqUnit.module(this.moduleName);
};

TestCase.prototype.test = function (string, testFn) {
if (this.setUp) {
this.setUp ();
}

jqUnit.test (string, testFn);

if (this.tearDown) {
this.tearDown ();
}
};

//  Mix the TestCase type into the jqUnit namespace.
$.extend(jqUnit, {TestCase: TestCase});
}) (jQuery);
Title: Test Title Goes Here





Test Title Goes Here












---
Colin Clark
Technical Lead, Fluid Project
http://fluidproject.org

[jQuery] Test - Please disregard

[Rey Bango]

Test email.

[jQuery] Test if jquery has loaded

[MikeeBee]

Is there a small piece of code you can put on a page to test if jquery
has loaded?

Thanks

[jQuery] Test

[Null]

This is a test if everything works!
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Test-tp14339766s27240p14339766.html
Sent from the jQuery General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[jQuery] Test if object is jQuery object

[Josh Nathanson]

Is there a cool way to check if an object is a jQuery object as opposed to 
any other object?


I tried the constructor property but it just says Object(), the same as any 
other object.


Tried typeof, but same deal, just object.

Right now my function can take an object or a jQuery object as an argument, 
and all I've figured out is that the jQuery object is indexable 
(array-like), so if the object is not jQuery it will return undefined if I 
say obj[0].  But, this seems like a hack - is there a better way to test the 
object's type?


-- Josh

[jQuery] test

[KushM]

test

[jQuery] test

[Daniel Rossi]

my emails arent coming through

[jQuery] test

[Salvatore FUSTO]

excuse for this test

[jQuery] Test

[Rey Bango]

Test
--
BrightLight Development, LLC.
954-775- (o)
954-600-2726 (c)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iambright.com

[jQuery] test if element as a class

[Alexandre Plennevaux]

hello,
 
i'm trying to test a condition whether a link has a given class, and have it 
return "true" or "false".
 
if ($(this).attr("class")=='refresh') {
   alert("changing page");
return true;
   }
else
{
return false;
}
 
but it does not work, any idea how to do that best ?
 
 
thank you !!
 
alex
 
 
 

Alexandre Plennevaux - LAb[au] asbl.vzw / MediaRuimte
Lakensestraat/Rue de Laeken 104
B-1000 Brussel-Bruxelles-Brussels
Belgie-Belgique-Belgium

Tel:+32(0)2.219.65.55
Fax:+32(0)2.426.69.86
Mobile:+32(0)476.23.21.42
HYPERLINK "blocked::http://www.lab-au.com/"http://www.lab-au.com
HYPERLINK "blocked::http://www.mediaruimte.be/"http://www.mediaruimte.be

HYPERLINK 
"blocked::http://www.mediaruimte.be/"__

The information in this e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above.  
If you are not that addressee, please note that any disclosure, distribution or 
copying of this e-mail is prohibited.
Because e-mail can be electronically altered, the integrity of this 
communication cannot be guaranteed.

__

 

Ce message Envoi est certifié sans virus connu.
Analyse effectuée par AVG.
Version: 7.5.467 / Base de données virus: 269.6.1/777 - Date: 26/04/2007 15:23
 

[jQuery] Test

[Rey Bango]

test
--
BrightLight Development, LLC.
954-775- (o)
954-600-2726 (c)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iambright.com

[jQuery] Test for a function being defined

[Shelane Enos]

Is there a test to know if a function has been defined or declared?

function modify(){
...my code
}

if(function('modify'))


or something like that?

[jQuery] Test post from outlook

[Andy Matthews]

Please ignore.

 

 
Andy Matthews
Senior Coldfusion Developer

Office:  877.707.5467 x747
Direct:  615.627.9747
Fax:  615.467.6249
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.dealerskins.com  
 


dealerskinslogo.bmp
Description: Windows bitmap