and just defer everyone to
> using the form plugin.
I need methods to serialize field values on an individual basis or a
group which is not encapsulated in a form or for a subset of fields
in a form. The Form plugin only exposes serialization on an entire
form basis.
thanks, ke han
hread someone can point me to explaining this or can someone
recap the issues?
thanks, ke han
On Oct 26, 2006, at 10:46 PM, Jörn Zaefferer wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'd really like to see John's modifications to pushStack included
> in the jQuery core. Details here: http://www.nab
behavior to be polymorphic could do the trick for most cases.
ke han
On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:05 AM, Sam Collett wrote:
> On 16/10/06, Brian Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that there's a simpler answer to this.
>>
>> If we're going to overhaul t
t.
However, in jQuery, it seems wise to try a different approach with a
custom javascript class as a hidden helper object. For a jQuery
approach, TabManager is a referencable DOM object instead of a named
javascript variable.
Any ideas?
thanks, ke han
s for interface conflicts. This
would at least give me some peace of mind (especially for a newcomer
that doesn't know or even plan to use the entire API).
thanks for a very interesting product.
ke han
>
> #1 will only be solved through a change in the name of the methods
> (for exampl
oops, my apologies for not providing a subject to this post. I'm
usually a good maillist person ;-). ke han
On Oct 16, 2006, at 3:19 PM, ke han wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm new to jQuery...thanks for a great product!!
> One thing I like to understand when choosing a js
mance problem is "Test 6 - Iterators". This
test shows 3 to 6x performance hit for using functional style each()
iteration instead of the js for loop.
Has anyone done similar tests with jQuery? Is there reason to
believe jQuery would have less an impact?
