Blog posts of dubious quality, like this one,
http://jquery-howto.blogspot.com/2009/07/identifying-locating-mouse-position-in.html
, have frequently peddled this bit of info.
Again, I'm totes in favour of this happening, but am just mentioning
that this type of code does exist. Support for $().re
> Well, I have to admit that I am not too happy in which direction attr
> () is going.
> Adding to much magic is not simplifying the API to me.
> If we (John) wont an method that can do everything (including
> bindings!), than I would prefer it as an separate method ("set()" ?)
> leaving rest of AP
> I will take a look at this when I get a chance. I'm not going to copy
> his code, but if there are any similarities then he can sue me.
>
> I think one of the core problems is understanding what attr() is
> intended to do. Clearly it is not just a get/setAttribute wrapper.
> Clearly it is not jus
> I think one of the core problems is understanding what attr() is
> intended to do. Clearly it is not just a get/setAttribute wrapper.
> Clearly it is not just meant to access the properties of elements. It
> is a mixture of several different ways to access "attributes" of an
> element, and it app
On Dec 13, 6:06 pm, John Resig wrote:
> Just got word from Paul Irish that David Mark is refusing to provide
> an open license for his attribute test suite - in fact he's
> threatening legal action against me and the Software Freedom
> Conservancy if we should "cop[y] one word or the tiniest aspec
+1
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Paul Irish wrote:
> +1 for keeping the nightly truly "nightly"
>
> It's a huge boon to people that want to test the latest code in their
> real-world apps.
>
> On Dec 12, 11:02 am, alexander farkas
> wrote:
> > You have made a lot of changes since your Alpha
I like the change. even if it breaks some code here and there. The
previous behavior was too much "magic" and confusing to any developer
that hasn't peered under the covers.
On Dec 13, 8:24 pm, John Resig wrote:
> The most frequent case I've seen is $().ready() (which still works and
> I plan on
The most frequent case I've seen is $().ready() (which still works and
I plan on continuing to make work, at least for the time being). I
haven't really seen other cases being used in the wild - do you have
any examples?
--John
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:06 PM, ajpiano wrote:
> A recent commit
A recent commit -
http://github.com/jquery/jquery/commit/04524287d3e0112deae570ff9247c734833431bb
- changed the behaviour of $() from $(document) to $([]).
This is a change that I can truly jibe with, and I think the behaviour
makes sense. No one likes having to do $([]) to create an empty jQuery
Hey Guys,
In case you haven't been following.
The full thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev/browse_thread/thread/baef5e91bd714033
My response:
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev/msg/b8079000b547df15
--John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog
Just got word from Paul Irish that David Mark is refusing to provide
an open license for his attribute test suite - in fact he's
threatening legal action against me and the Software Freedom
Conservancy if we should "cop[y] one word or the tiniest aspect of the
design". Naturally, that branch with t
Yeah I tried that too, and it was slightly slower in most browsers
than cloneNode. The other issue with this, is that if the user has a
slow computer, or the removal is taking a really long time, layout
problems may occur since there is no element in the DOM during the
emptying. The cloneNode met
I agree that documentation of these pitfalls, specifically with
relation to jQuery, would be very useful (in addition to sites like
http://webbugtrack.blogspot.com) and I also realize that attempting to
fix this IE6 bug in jQuery would be a waste of time.
In my defence, I'm not usually the type wh
hi,
I didn´t see that you clean up events/dom-expandos to prevent memory
leaks. how fast is your method if you invoke the cleanData-function
beofre replacing the parentElement?
regards
alex
On 13 Dez., 14:19, Devon Govett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've just blogged about a technique that I used to m
Actually, now that you bring this up, it would make a lot of sense to
just remove the element from the DOM first and /then/ go through and
clean up the child nodes, and finally re-inject the element again. I'm
hesitant to do a cloneNode because of the inherent problems that exist
in Internet Explor
+1 for keeping the nightly truly "nightly"
It's a huge boon to people that want to test the latest code in their
real-world apps.
On Dec 12, 11:02 am, alexander farkas
wrote:
> You have made a lot of changes since your Alpha release. It would be
> great, if you would update the nightly builds mo
Yeah, something like Team City or a.n other CI server would be a great
addition.
They can watch for git commits, then run ant tasks to build and
automate the running of the unit tests - if all pass - minify it up
and place in nightly build folder.
On Dec 12, 4:02 pm, alexander farkas
wrote:
> Yo
Hi all,
I've just blogged about a technique that I used to make jQuery.empty
over 10x faster in some cases. Basically, rather than individually
removing each child element from the DOM which causes the browser to
reflow after each one, I use a shallow cloneNode to do the job then
copying events b
Hi everybody,
The essence of my question is this:
if I want to pass an array as a parameter via ajax using Jquery I
should do this:
jQuery.post('radcheck/new', {'user[]':user}, function(result) {
//something here
});
Let's say I have this:
user[0] = 'name'
user[1] = 'surname'
jQuery.post('radc
19 matches
Mail list logo
