> There is Object.toXML(), can be found here:
> http://jquery.com/dev/svn/jquery/build/js/xml.js Not really something
> special by jQuery, but should do the job.
Well, it is sort of specific to jQuery, because I wrote it ;-) With
that being said, I wouldn't trust that code any more than I could
th
It's nice that we agree on so many levels! ! It's even good when we
don't! at least we learn about other opinions!
--
Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ
▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒
░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░
▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒
░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░
▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒
___
Hi,
> I wasn't claiming that for was any less great than each! I was
> complaining about looping a concat vs. doing a join at t the end...
Erm, did I discuss that somewhere? You answered to my posting. The concat vs.
join stuff was Sam.
My point was to take the check for XMLSerializer out of th
I wasn't claiming that for was any less great than each! I was
complaining about looping a concat vs. doing a join at t the end...
and other micro effeciencies. I gave up tiny-tuning code when I gave
up assembler.
I tell this to all my programmers, You can't compare a little
application code time
Hi,
> I like optimized code as much as the next guy... but brevity and
> readability is KEY. the milliseconds that you can save using one
> reasonable technique vs. another are not comparable to the seconds it
> takes for an http request.
Is this about my suggestion to use for() instead of each(
I like optimized code as much as the next guy... but brevity and
readability is KEY. the milliseconds that you can save using one
reasonable technique vs. another are not comparable to the seconds it
takes for an http request.
I never liked using XMLSerializer because I can't hit the tags &
attri
Hi,
> $.fn.serializeXML = function () {
> var out = '';
> if (typeof XMLSerializer == 'function') {
> var xs = new XMLSerializer();
> this.each(function() {
> out += xs.serializeToString(this);
> });
> } else if (thi
On 02/10/06, Mark Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, after some searching around the web, I believe that
> Firefox, Opera, and Safari all implement XMLSerializer,
> whilst IE has an 'xml' property on every node.
> So here's my XML serializer plugin:
>
> $.fn.serializeXML = function () {
>
I can test in Safari and Opera if you'll provide an example/test page. :)
--
Brandon Aaron
On 10/2/06, Mark Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, after some searching around the web, I believe that
> Firefox, Opera, and Safari all implement XMLSerializer,
> whilst IE has an 'xml' property on ev
Ok, after some searching around the web, I believe that
Firefox, Opera, and Safari all implement XMLSerializer,
whilst IE has an 'xml' property on every node.
So here's my XML serializer plugin:
$.fn.serializeXML = function () {
var out = '';
if (typeof XMLSerializer == 'function')
Sam Collett wrote:
> On 02/10/06, Mark Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I've search high and low, but can't find a method of serializing XML
>> with jQuery. Have I missed something, or should I start writing a
>> new plugin? ($.fn.serializeXML)
>>
>> I know that firefox has XMLSeriali
Mark Gibson schrieb:
> Hello,
> I've search high and low, but can't find a method of serializing XML
> with jQuery. Have I missed something, or should I start writing a
> new plugin? ($.fn.serializeXML)
>
> I know that firefox has XMLSerializer(), any ideas for IE, Safari,
> Opera? Maybe just a han
On 02/10/06, Mark Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I've search high and low, but can't find a method of serializing XML
> with jQuery. Have I missed something, or should I start writing a
> new plugin? ($.fn.serializeXML)
>
> I know that firefox has XMLSerializer(), any ideas for IE, Sa
Hello,
I've search high and low, but can't find a method of serializing XML
with jQuery. Have I missed something, or should I start writing a
new plugin? ($.fn.serializeXML)
I know that firefox has XMLSerializer(), any ideas for IE, Safari,
Opera? Maybe just a hand coded JS serializing routine?
-
14 matches
Mail list logo
