Hi Matas,
Unlike .bind(), only a single event can be bound in each call to
the .live() method.
Check out http://docs.jquery.com/Events/live
I you do $(document).live('onFirst', callback).live('onSecond',
callback).live('onThird', callback)
you should have more luck.
Hope this helpe!
George
On
I would do something like
$(select.country).change(function () {
var country = $(this),
country_id = country.attr(id),
state = country.next(select.state);
});
state isn't the DOM element, it's the jQuery object, so you'd have to go
alert(state.attr(id));
Hope this helps.
Also, I agree with
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat,
plausible, and wrong.
-- H. L. Mencken
I was wrong. msbuild is not necessary.
jQuery building on (almost) any windows can be done with one wsf
file.
I am making it right now.
--DBJ
--
You received this message because
isPlainObject sounds perfect. It evokes Plain Old JavaScript Object, which
applies equally to {} and 'new Object' but not to 'new Foobar' or a String.
John, sorry I was cranky about this last night, but trust me, it matters.
Any experienced JavaScript programmer will do a double-take on
I was wrong. jQuery building on (almost) any windows can be done
with one wsf file.
I am making it right now.
Please do share! :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
jQuery Development group.
To post to this group, send email to
Any experienced JavaScript programmer will do a double-take on
isObjectLiteral just like I did, thinking, Huh? That's impossible! What
does the function *really* do?
Just happened to me last night. :-) I was wondering how it was able to
tell {} from new Object.
--
You received this message
Grepping for 'new Date' through the jquery source shows a bit of
variety in Date - Time handling.
Casual question really: Is there an aim to get consistency in the code-
base, or a house style on how to handle dates?
Some of the variety seems to come from context and purpose: when
you're
Personally, I find that the expression +new Date is obtuse and doesn't
really explain what is happening very well. You're creating an object
- then putting a plus next to it - to get some result. Is it a string?
a number? Whereas (new Date).getTime() is very explicit: You know that
you're getting
I think it's pretty self-explanatory: + forces the invocation of valueOf to
get the primitive value, which in the case of Date is the timestamp.
It's the same behavior you would expect if you try to perform another
arithmetic operation (new Date * 1)
That said, I think that it really doesn't
Hello,
I am experiencing exactly the same behavior.
As shown in the code I tried to get all the li elements into the array
items and make it unique, but not even that worked.
(see Source Code).
The only solution was the proposed one:
$(this).children(:last).remove();
Is there any new
Hey Rafal,
Thanks for your reply but I think, perhaps, you misunderstood where I
was going with this post. I understand that the Same Origin Policy is
a problem in conventional JS and I do know about JSONP and
JSONRequest. What I was suggesting was an implementation, not for the
browser, but for
Because Modernizr (http://modernizr.com) already does these sorts of
tests, it seemed that it could act as a plugin conduit to achieve the
same goal.
So in the current dev master of Modernizr, jQuery.support will be
extended with the test results.
http://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr
Enrique
12 matches
Mail list logo
