On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:17 PM, morfunk wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just wanted to let everyone know about a new project of mine, jQTouch
> (www.jqtouch.com) which is a jQuery-based port of iUI. It is still in
> its infant stages, but already has most of the functionality of iUI,
> with native, hardwa
Hi,
I have ASP.net control and i want to remove its value (if it has a
specified value) before submit event so server will recognize it as a
empty textbox. normally it behaves like watermark textbox. because of
that it also sends the watermark value if no text written. what should
i do?
Thanks,
Yeah, it always seems best to insert full tables. There's a bunch of
special case code that comes into play for table fragments, and you
avoid most of it if you start with a top-level tag.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
Re this ticket:
http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4283
Version 1.3.x now detect documents served as XHTML+XML to be XML
documents. This means the attributes-are-sometimes-properties magic
doesn't happen in jQuery.attr. So,
$("#check").attr("checked", true);
sets an attribute named "checked" on #che
Insert the elements into a document, then look at the styles.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscrib
Created new ticket and linked here: http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4284
On Mar 2, 5:16 pm, John Resig wrote:
> I'm not sure if that's really the expected behavior - especially since
> much of the data bound to an individual element is very specific to an
> element.
>
> I do agree about there needi
Yes, I made an writing error. The second case (!his[i]) would return
an jquery with the not-true value instead of an empty one. This was
the reason of Ricardo's not entirely correct solution, I suppose.
On Mar 2, 10:10 pm, Robert Katić wrote:
> I figured out (unfortunately not before) that the m
I couldn't find a bug for this general issue... although I did find a
similar bug but that was for show() and table elements.
I do not have a demo page, but this page would work:
http://www.w3.org/
TR/html4/strict.dtd">
http://jqueryjs.googlecode.com/files/
Your solution resolves the "out of range" problem, but doesn't
resolves the problem where el is not true.
Although, jquery object is usually an array-like object of nodes, it
can contains other values too, including: false, undefined, null and
0. In that cases your solution will return an "empty"
Given:
var newTr = '';
for (var a = 0; a < 1000; a++) {
newTr += ('test');
}
This:
$('#testTable').append(newTr);
is about 6 times slower (in Firefox 3.06 with jQuery 1.3.2) then:
$('#testTable').append('' + newTr + '');
I'm not sure if anything can be done about this, given that forcin
Now this is getting dirty - this should do (split for readability):
eq: function( i ) {
var el = this[ i<0 ? i+this.length : i];
return this.pushStack( el || [], 'eq', i )
}
No loss of performance with this one.
- ricardo
On Mar 2, 6:10 pm, Robert Katić wrote:
> I figured out (unfortu
Your link to the demo is broken, I believe it should be /preview/
instead of /demo/. I tried the demo on the site as well as the Dyad
Communications page - both are nice, though I'd like to see something
more advanced like drag and drop if possible. Also the demo on the
jqtouch site only works in
@John: Will do - I'll post a plug-in later this week.
On Mar 2, 6:30 am, John Resig wrote:
> Kevin -
>
> Something like this we'd like to test out in the realm of plugins
> first - just release your work as a plugin (be sure to toss it up on
> plugins.jquery.com and link to some demos) and if p
@Daniel: I'm not sure I understand this question?
"Why use a custom object notation incompatible with anything else when
JSON exists? Why not incorporate json stringifying instead?"
The $.url object IS a hash (JSON). However, in addition to simple-data
and sub-keys, it can also contain arrays in
You linked to some code snippets but do you have a demo page online
anywhere? And is there a bug filed related to this topic?
--John
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:45 AM, sliver wrote:
>
> Posting a link to this thread here for possible bug in 1.3.2?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/br
I'm not sure if that's really the expected behavior - especially since
much of the data bound to an individual element is very specific to an
element.
I do agree about there needing to be a way to copy all data from one
element to another - if you'd like to file a bug on that, that'd be
great - j
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Daniel Friesen
wrote:
> I do agree with being able to get query data. Though, I believe the
> reason most JS libraries and JS itself completely exclude url query
> parsing is because there is no true standard on how to handle query
> keys.
Well, jQuery could use
That's correct. It was removed in jQuery 1.3.3. It wasn't used in
jQuery core (and ended up causing unexpected effects for things like
hide/show which don't work on visibility).
This was done in favor of a significantly-faster implementation which
only tends to focus on display: none;
--John
Since when did PHP and CGI use this?
page.html?actor={first: Clint, last: Eastwood}
I do agree with being able to get query data. Though, I believe the
reason most JS libraries and JS itself completely exclude url query
parsing is because there is no true standard on how to handle query
keys
Was this done on purpose?
if i have a ul, and say an li with the class of test and i give it a
style of .test{visiblity:hidden; border: 1px soild balck;} and then
try to select the other li's it using $('li:visible') it returns a the
li.test in the array.
If i remove the border rule from the css
Hi all,
Just wanted to let everyone know about a new project of mine, jQTouch
(www.jqtouch.com) which is a jQuery-based port of iUI. It is still in
its infant stages, but already has most of the functionality of iUI,
with native, hardware-accelerated, transitions used instead of
Javascript based.
Another post to a possible bug (unless it is intended, if so, there
should be a method to retrieve all data objects for manually cloning).
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/browse_thread/thread/afda31af6bafdbf2#
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this messa
Posting a link to this thread here for possible bug in 1.3.2?
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/browse_thread/thread/b1e5b33e5dba1357#
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" grou
I do something very similar in my JS.
> Why not incorporate json stringifying instead?
It's very useful to mirror CGI format - e.g. how PHP and Rails use it.
E.g.
?x=hello
rather than JSON :
x='hello'
On 2 Mar, 17:40, Daniel Friesen wrote:
> Why use a custom object notation incompatibl
To be honest I do not deal with GET parameters in javascript so often,
but sometimes I need to, and I was quite surprised to see that jQuey
has not a function to retrieve them, not even in Utils. I think it
would be quite useful having a simple function like that.
d
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:40 P
I figured out (unfortunately not before) that the main reason why the
current implementation uses slicing is to ensure correct behavior in
case of "index out of range" and in case of !this[i].
Here proposed solutions will not return an empty jquery in that cases,
but an jquery with the document el
Why use a custom object notation incompatible with anything else when
JSON exists?
Why not incorporate json stringifying instead?
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://nadir-seen-fire.com]
-Nadir-Point & Wiki-Tools (http://nadir-point.com) (http://wiki-tools.com)
-MonkeyScript (http
HI,
On Mar 2, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Prajwala Manchikatla wrote:
> Is your firebug version is 1.3.2 ?
That is it.
> Because there is a problem with firebug 1.3.2 version which will
> send extra xmlhttp request. I faced this problem. Check by
> disabling firebug. If it works then upgrade your fi
Firebug 1.3.3 is available. :)
http://getfirebug.com/releases/firebug/1.3/firebug-1.3.3.xpi
Best regards,
Cloudream
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Prajwala Manchikatla
wrote:
> Is your firebug version is 1.3.2 ? Because there is a problem with firebug
> 1.3.2 version which will send extra xm
Is your firebug version is 1.3.2 ? Because there is a problem with firebug
1.3.2 version which will send extra xmlhttp request. I faced this problem.
Check by disabling firebug. If it works then upgrade your firebug1.3.3b3,
firefox3.0.6 with new version.
cheers,
Prajwala
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at
Kevin -
Something like this we'd like to test out in the realm of plugins
first - just release your work as a plugin (be sure to toss it up on
plugins.jquery.com and link to some demos) and if people really start
to use it we'll definitely consider it for core. That's generally how
we evaluate mo
Ricardo,
I am highly supporting this idea even at the cost of code size (to
some extent).
Also, more independent, normally means more maintainable and less
execution calls so should be faster too.
Diego Perini
On 2 Mar, 13:18, ricardobeat wrote:
> I'm not really aware of the code practices in
Dave,
I didn't meant changing anything there...maybe I optimized too much.
What I wanted to do was just adding a ".cloneNode(false)" in the
second "fragment" instance in that line so instead of:
callback.call( root(this[i], first), this.length > 1 || i > 0 ?
fragment.cloneNode(true) : fr
I'm not really aware of the code practices in the core, but I thought
keeping one method independent from the other was a good thing.
On Mar 1, 6:31 pm, Robert Katić wrote:
> Making "inline calling" would be avoided if not really necessary.
> Is the speed difference of two solutions relevant at
Just ensure that jQuery-1.2.6 is loaded first, so that it become the
default Query and register it with Versions as 'default'. Then load
jQuery-1.3.2 and call noConflict(true), and register it with Versions
as '1.3'. You shouldn't have to worry about foxycart and it's plugins
then - all you need b
35 matches
Mail list logo
