Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ schrieb:
if you really have to validate, and don't want each spec stuffed into
the javascript (script tag or onclick), consider putting the spec
inside a code class=accordion_snippet tag (which would be hidden
in css)
and could be extracted as easily as the title attribute!
or a special
Brandon Aaron schrieb:
What is
more important than validation is to do whatever makes it easiest to
implement and maintain.
May I ask you that question again, once you want to start to deliver
your XHTML (as XML) to all kind of devices like mobiles other than the
typical web browsers? The
is it as bad as using li ul to create menus or using classes for
non-css purposes?
my $.002 cents!
On 10/30/06, Klaus Hartl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ schrieb:
if you really have to validate, and don't want each spec stuffed into
the javascript (script tag or onclick), consider
Paul McLanahan schrieb:
@jake
I'm really liking the code tag idea. If I'm understanding you
correctly, it would work something like associating a label to an input
using the for attribute. I'd just be associating a code tag's
contents with a specific DL either by location in the markup or
the only other idea I had was
script type=text/x-accordion-parameters
but that was too long,
On 10/31/06, Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it as bad as using li ul to create menus or using classes for
non-css purposes?
my $.002 cents!
On 10/30/06, Klaus Hartl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it as bad as using li ul to create menus
As a menu is semantically wise a list of links that somehow belong
together I don't see a problem there. In XHTML 2 there will even be a
navigation list (sic!) element nl.
or using classes for non-css purposes?
According to the HTML Specs, the
Is there any reason not to simply use a _javascript_ snipit in a script tag? There are good reasons to put code at the start of a page or in a separate file, but in this case I would say that putting it at the top of the relevant tag is perfectly reasonable:
ul id=list_xyzscript$(#list_xyz).attr(
Paul McLanahan wrote:
@jake
I'm really liking the code tag idea. If I'm understanding you
correctly, it would work something like associating a label to an input
using the for attribute. I'd just be associating a code tag's
contents with a specific DL either by location in the markup or
Question: why would you want to have multiple $(document).ready statements
Why not just the following
$(document).ready(function(){
//do this
initialise functionality
// then this
DrawScreen functionality
// then this
AddMouseEvents
Adrian Sweeney schrieb:
Question: why would you want to have multiple $(document).ready statements
Why not just the following
$(document).ready(function(){
//do this
initialise functionality
// then this
DrawScreen functionality
// then this
and also because I thought that was the group consensus. One question
I posed back then was, Why would you want to serialize form elements
in a way that does not correctly utilize the element state? In other
words, why submit controls that are not successful[1]? I guess your
on-the-fly
Michael Geary schrieb:
The main reason I'm trying to avoid non-spec attributes is
for code longevity.
What you think over this:
dl
dt
a rel=accordion:false,showSpeed:'slow',hideAll:true /
click me
/dt
dd
to show me
/dd
/dl
Thanks that was a very helpful answer.
Adrian Sweeney
Web Developer
Mills Reeve
Tel: +44(0)121 456 8236
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mills-reeve.com
-Original Message-
From: Klaus Hartl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 October 2006 09:58
To: jQuery Discussion.
Subject: Re:
You can supply atributes with initialization of
plugin. Code can be like this:
$(document).ready(
$("#accordion").accordion_plugin({
accordion: true,
show_speed:'slow'
});
$("#another_accordion").accordion_plugin({
accordion: true,
show_speed:'fast'
})
);
Or I'm
Olaf Bosch schrieb:
Michael Geary schrieb:
The main reason I'm trying to avoid non-spec attributes is
for code longevity.
What you think over this:
dl
dt
a rel=accordion:false,showSpeed:'slow',hideAll:true /
click me
/dt
dd
to
Blair McKenzie-2 wrote:
Is there any reason not to simply use a javascript snipit in a script tag?
There are good reasons to put code at the start of a page or in a separate
file, but in this case I would say that putting it at the top of the
relevant tag is perfectly reasonable:
ul
for exzample:
$([EMAIL PROTECTED]'text']).each(function(){if (this.value==){alert(error);this.focus();break;}});
but 'break;' won't stop the iteration of each, what should i do?
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
Hey,
I think it's tomorrow now. I'm just wondering what you've decided to put
together for the widget pack?
Cheers
wycats wrote:
Hey guys,
I've made some progress collecting widgets for the Visual jQuery Widget
Pack. I will be posting later today with a list of what I've come up with
mrkris schrieb:
Perhaps I missed this in the docs, but I'm using the corner plugin from
http://www.malsup.com/jquery/corner/
The plugin works great, but the moment I assign a height to a class:
.foo {
height: 150px;
}
then do:
$('.foo').corner()
The corners appear 1/2 way down
asterocean wrote:
for exzample:
$([EMAIL PROTECTED]'text']).each(function(){if
(this.value==){alert(error);this.focus();break;}});
but 'break;' won't stop the iteration of each, what should i do?
There was some discussion on this list of returning false
to break the loop - but I'm not
Personally, I'd rather use a div or span for that sort of thing, rather
than a code tag.
div
class=accordion_initaccordion:false,showSpeed:'slow',hideAll:true/div
Then, style div.accordion_init to be hidden, and you get the same effect
without misusing the code tag.
- Brian
Which would work
I would agree that usually a script tag would suit this just fine.
However, for me I don't always want that javascript executed. I only
want that javascript executed if it is a supported browser.
--
Brandon Aaron
On 10/31/06, Krzysztof FF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blair McKenzie-2 wrote:
I have been looking at the Form Validation plugin created by Jörn Zaefferer (which is excellent btw) and the way he used a special class syntax to indicate validation rules for various form elements. He use some specific stuff like class=$v(required,max:15) to indicate that the field is required
but 'break;' won't stop the iteration of each, what should i do?
Return false inside the function and it will stop. That was added recently
but the docs weren't updated to reflect it.
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
Brian Miller schrieb:
Personally, I'd rather use a div or span for that sort of thing, rather
than a code tag.
div
class=accordion_initaccordion:false,showSpeed:'slow',hideAll:true/div
Then, style div.accordion_init to be hidden, and you get the same effect
without misusing the code tag.
LOL, couldnt find it. As you answered, its essential that things should
work this way for composability, and I'm glad they do.
As an aside, I don't know why the mailing list software insists on calling
me JYL, I'm Jacob Levy and I'm in California :) Nice to meet you all, and
as you inferred, I'm
The corners appear 1/2 way down the element, it doesn't scale at all.
Hope this makes sense. Anyone run into this or know how to fix this?
Thanks.
I had the same yesterday, the examples on the demo page are using a
padding of 20px ... that with the height is not working properly
Brian Miller schrieb:
Hey listen,
I'd love to be able to pack all of the accordion parameters into classes.
But, there's just too much information there to make it make-sensical when
read by people who are a bit slow on the uptake, as Paul hints might be
the case.
Another good, but not
Hi,
I'd like to suggest an additional option for $.ajax()
to allow an alternative Content-Type, eg: application/json
I'd like to send raw JSON data to a PHP script, but PHP
requires that a Content-Type other than the usual
'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'
is set before it allows you to access
Then, style div.accordion_init to be hidden, and you get the same
effect without misusing the code tag.
Poor people that have to use a text browser, a screenreader,
or simply have switched of CSS...
...
Here's another solution that may be suitable for you: Do not put
all options into the
Hey listen,
I'd love to be able to pack all of the accordion parameters into classes.
But, there's just too much information there to make it make-sensical when
read by people who are a bit slow on the uptake, as Paul hints might be
the case.
Another good, but not very semantic solution, was to
mrkris, Steven,
Wow, believe it or not I never noticed that. I guess I don't use fixed
height divs too often. I'm working on a fix for that but am having a
hard time with IE6 (surprise, surprise). I may need to call in the
big guns (aka, Dave Methvin).
Mike
The corners appear 1/2 way down
The recent discussion about the merits of putting code into hidden parts
of the document brings up the accessibility issue. Accessibility is not just
about totally blind or deaf people. It's also about the person who is
color-blind, has limited motor skills, or just prefers using a keyboard.
Paul McLanahan schrieb:
I have been looking at the Form Validation plugin created by Jörn
Zaefferer (which is excellent btw) and the way he used a special class
syntax to indicate validation rules for various form elements. He use
some specific stuff like class=$v(required,max:15) to
Hello,
Is there a jQuery function to enumerate the key/value pairs in a
querystring? I wasn't able to find one with the Visual jQuery website
and instead of reinventing the wheel I thought I'd query the list.
Thanks,
Chris.
___
jQuery mailing list
There are tons of scripts out there for
this type of functionality. Flash can talk to _javascript_ and vice versa quite
well nowadays, so getting a flash object (such as a compass) to follow your
mouse via JS updating the flash object isnt hard, but why? This
is something thats really
BIG thumbs up here... a few hours were spent trying to figure out what the hell
some of these functions expected... good stuff Jorn...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jörn Zaefferer
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:22 AM
To:
@Klaus and DaveI do like that. Adding an even further layer of abstraction to the mix would be even cleaner for the non-technical to implement. We could have 3 or 4 sets of useful defaults which could be chosen via the second class, or even by an underscore separated single class name where
code, div full javascript each have problems
Everybody (well almost) likes the idea of putting scripting in script tags.
script tags don't have to be coded as type=text/javascriptm as we
know from vb and other abominations.
let's just use the informal type text/x-jquery-json that contains 1 js
Mike Stenhouse schrieb:
Hi all
I've been using jQuery for a while but I'm just about to do my first
serious bit of Ajax with it and there's a piece of functionality I need.
I want to reuse a single XmlHttpObject to avoid content coming back out
of order, or I want to be able to cancel an
Klaus Hartl schrieb:
Yehuda Katz schrieb:
Jorn made some modification to make it possible (I believe) to choose
specific plugins. I think you need to use with_plugins as an optional
MODIFIER now, so you could do ant docs with_plugins, or ant pack
with_plugins. I could be wrong though.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:46 AM Luke Lutman said:
Have a look at this recent thread :-)
http://www.nabble.com/method-plugin-for-getting-query-string-vars--tf248
1232.html#a6919130
I read through this and tried to implement your first suggestion but I
notice that everything takes
You make a good point about mobile devices, etc. Klaus -- point taken.
I'm still not convinced about using object / though -- for me it's got
a number of cons:
* It's messy -- you need different code for different browsers. All the
browsers support object /, but IE wants a different object /
43 matches
Mail list logo
