Fixed, replied on new forum with details.
On Jan 17, 11:23 am, Kevin Dalman wrote:
> I cross-posted this on the NEW jQuery forum as well...
>
> http://forum.jquery.com/#Topic/1473700616772
>
> On Jan 17, 7:59 am, Kevin Dalman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > If a UI widget like Tabs or Accordion is insi
This actually doesn't work in 1.3.2. It just throws an error expecting
the proxy to be a function, not an object.
On Dec 31 2009, 12:39 am, John Resig wrote:
> jQuery has already solved this problem internally using our
> jQuery.event.proxy method - and, in fact, if I were to land a
> jQuery.bin
Might be worth re-opening http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/5459
On Dec 21, 7:22 am, weepy wrote:
> Calling animate with empty hash prevents that element from animating
> again
>
> $("#piece_1").animate({top:200}) => moves
>
> $("#piece_1").animate({}) => nothing happens (as expected)
>
> $("#piece_1
On Nov 27, 11:25 am, John Resig wrote:
> Very interesting - reading through the docs it looks like setting
> core.autocrlf to 'input' is pretty useful (it'll make sure that the
> line-endings are just LF for anyone that commits, which is what we
> want).
This is slightly different than what we ha
In jQuery UI we have lots of cases where we normalize various values to
jQuery objects. Possible values are a jQuery object, DOMElement, array of
DOMElements, selector, the string 'parent', the string 'clone', a function
that returns a jQuery object. I've put together a function to handle this,
but
You're trying to use Interface with jQuery 1.3.2, which isn't going to
work. You either need a much older version of jQuery or you need to
find different plugins to use (I would suggest starting with jQuery
UI). Interface hasn't been supported for a few years now.
On Oct 30, 2:35 pm, yashmistrey
I put together an explanation of how this works, along with a demo:
http://blog.nemikor.com/2009/10/03/using-multiple-versions-of-jquery/
Hope that helps.
On Oct 2, 8:35 am, Scott González wrote:
> This is exactly the purpose of using jQuery.noConflict(). It allows
> you to run mu
This is exactly the purpose of using jQuery.noConflict(). It allows
you to run multiple versions of jQuery and even other libraries that
might use the $ variable.
If you're using multiple versions, just make sure to include the
appropriate plugins at the correct times (only load plugins for a
spe
On Sep 10, 11:35 am, KeeganWatkins wrote:
> That is another great point, and in many ways it addresses my desired
> use of unbind(). I wonder though, if it is ideal to use a custom event
> (or events) for the sole purpose of the added granularity (i.e. the
> ability to reference a specific handle
On Aug 11, 10:07 am, Pauan wrote:
> And how is it inferior to set the current item as an argument to the
> callback?
I never said that was inferior, I merely explained the context for why
the decision was made.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message becau
.hide(0) should have exactly the same behavior as .hide(1000) with
$.fx.off = true;
On Aug 10, 9:43 pm, Dave Methvin wrote:
> There's already an open ticket on this, it does seem like the callback
> should be called.
>
> http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/2542
--~--~-~--~~~---
There definitely is a reason for it. jQuery is a library for working
with the DOM, it is not a library meant to fix every problem with
JavaScript or to try to extend JavaScript in every possible way. When
using jQuery specifically to work with the DOM (probably >90% of what
you're using it for,
jQuery.bind doesn't exist, jQuery.prototype.bind does (therefore .bind
is not in the context of a function).
Furthermore, I don't see how this gives the wrong impression at all;
nobody expects to be able to call arbitrary methods on a jQuery object
just because a function exists on some other glo
We've got the exact same ticket sitting in jQuery UI's Trac for over
half a year ( http://dev.jqueryui.com/ticket/3673 ). It turns out
that the simplified implementation that's listed in both tickets isn't
actually useful for jQuery UI. Being able to unbind the events is
important for handling p
Would you be able to unbind a specific function with a specific scope?
$(el).bind('click', fn, foo);
$(el).bind('click', fn, bar);
$(el).unbind('click', fn, foo);
On May 4, 12:47 am, Brandon Aaron wrote:
> Looking for any feedback on #3699 before committing, which is for allowing
> an alterna
You can proxy jQuery.prototype.init to check the type of value being
passed as the selector. I built a test page to verify this:
http://nemikor.com/temp/objects/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQue
We're building this into jQuery UI, most likely for 1.8 (
http://wiki.jqueryui.com/PositionTo ). We should figure out what
parts can/should go into core and what should go into jQuery UI.
On Mar 20, 8:35 pm, Brandon Aaron wrote:
> Cool. I'll take a look at this soon. We might also want to make
On Feb 19, 11:14 am, John Resig wrote:
> Does this syntax conflict with what's current done for PHP?
> foo[]=bar&foo[]=baz
Yes, PHP will create arrays for foo[] and associative arrays for foo
[bar]. Here's the code I use for dealing with PHP: http://codedumper.com/awuqe
--~--~-~--~---
The jQuery UI Datepicker supports i18n and comes with a setting files
for a few dozen languages.
Here's a demo: http://jqueryui.com/demos/datepicker/localization.html
On Feb 19, 2:18 am, Obinna wrote:
> I am planning on using the ui datepicker component in an app with
> multi-calendar requirem
on FF
> and see the result compared with those you can get with jQuery.
>
> Let me know if I did understand your problem correctly. The above
> seemed weird to me at first but there are reasons to it, so a quick
> test will hopefully take you out of doubts...or put more on me... :-)
>
other subscribers to know the event was triggered? Shouldn't
> those subscribers be prepared to check if a particular change actually
> happened or not for some events?
>
> --
> Brandon Aaron
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Scott González
> wrote:
>
> > We have
We have a few places in jQuery UI where we need to prevent events from
occurring, e.g., preventing the click event after a drag. We've been
partially successful by just binding a handler and the click event and
returning false. This can be improved by calling
event.stopImmediatePropagation(), but
On Feb 8, 12:39 am, Daniel Friesen wrote:
> Well, for a plugin I honestly don't like the idea of being forced to use
> something like $('#foo').borderRadius(5); when really you're modifying a
> css property which would correctly be set with
> $('#foo').css({borderRadius: 5});
Can't you accomplis
Fixed.
On Feb 4, 8:55 pm, Scott González wrote:
> I've created a ticket for this:http://dev.jqueryui.com/ticket/4061
>
> Thanks for the test case.
>
> On Feb 3, 2:40 pm, BillyRayPreachersSon
>
> wrote:
> > Last night I upgraded from jQuery 1.2.6 and UI 1.5.3 t
I've created a ticket for this: http://dev.jqueryui.com/ticket/4061
Thanks for the test case.
On Feb 3, 2:40 pm, BillyRayPreachersSon
wrote:
> Last night I upgraded from jQuery 1.2.6 and UI 1.5.3 to jQuery 1.3.1
> and UI 1.6rc6 without too many problems at all (which is fantastic!).
>
> The on
I looked at AOL's AXS library very briefly a while ago and it does
something similar to this. Might be worth glancing over for ideas:
http://dev.aol.com/axs (specifically axs.keyreg).
On Jan 29, 9:24 pm, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> I brought this up a while back and I think it was well-received. I'd
urself.
> Just copy the props from the mousemove (fixed) event to a new $.Event
> ('drag').
>
> --
> Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
>
> On Jan 28, 5:38 am, Scott González wrote:
>
> > Can we use a different property to track fixed events or ma
Can we use a different property to track fixed events or make the expando
public? It would be really useful to be able to detect if an event is fixed
outside of core, or be able to remove the flag to allow the event to be
fixed again.
The problem I'm running into is I have an event that has alrea
I don't
> remember which, offhand). It is something that I'd like to get to
> eventually, just not sure what sort of timeframe we're looking at
> here.
>
> --John
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Scott González
>
> wrote:
> > I know there ar
I know there are plans to be immune from Object.prototype modifications.
What release is this immunity expected to land in? Until we get there, how
should tickets related to this be handled (see
http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3763#comment:3)?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Yo
I don't think this is actually a problem with jQuery. All previous
releases of jQuery UI are incompatible with jQuery 1.3. jQuery UI's
current SVN is compatible with 1.3 and incompatible with 1.2.6. I
tried running the above event handler against a current demo (http://
jquery-ui.googlecode.com
Attached a new patch. Added comments and fixed broken selector tests.
On Jan 5, 10:17 am, "John Resig" wrote:
> Sure, feel free to add the link!
>
> --John
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Scott González
> wrote:
>
> > The support test is checking
A one-line comment describing it and the the browsers
> in which it passes/fails would be good - other than that it looks
> great.
>
> Did any selector tests break when you added the new block of HTML to
> the test page? Just double-check to make sure.
>
> --John
>
> On Sun, Ja
I just attached a patch for ticket http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3649 to fix
getting and setting tabindex in IE. I'm hoping the patch can be reviewed
and committed for 1.3.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou
It turns out that some jQuery UI plugins are still using the extra
function manually. However, we are going to fix these places to use
the centralized method before 1.6 final is released. At that point we
will be able to just change one method in UI core and avoid any
problems that this change w
On Nov 29, 10:22 am, "Ariel Flesler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @Scott
>
> Ok, that's an easy change (leave it or remove it). The question is,
> what's the formal application of this extra function ?
I'm not sure what the original intention was when adding support for
the extra function. The o
jQuery UI uses the return value of triggerHandler, but we only care
about false, so this change shouldn't affect us.
What's the logic behind removing the event from the extra function?
If I remember correctly, I talked to John about this a while ago and
he couldn't think of any reason why that wa
Also, if it isn't clear from the other responses, you can add plugin
methods without using the extend method:
jQuery.fn.myPlugin = function(opts) { ... }
On Oct 20, 9:04 am, "Reinaldo \"JuniorZ\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm having a lot of fun extending jQuery, but some thing looks much o
On Oct 7, 6:06 pm, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I already added a note on our trac, but it seems many people don't
> read it.
The location of the note guarantees that it will never be read by
anyone, especially not someone coming specifically with the task of
creating a new ticket.
Is JIRA really as easy to use as Trac? To me it seems like a beast
and anything that would deter users from posting bugs is a bad thing.
On Oct 8, 4:18 am, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've recently worked a bit with JIRA, which is used for a lot of
> Apache projects. Usually a
The main difference I see between how this works and how the UI widget
factory works is that this exposes multiple functions in $.fn. When
the UI widget factory was first written all it did was handle
encapsulating all methods into one $.fn method to prevent polluting
jQuery's method namespace.
It's just a timestamp of when jQuery was parsed.
I'm curious about where you need to use a guid for your plugins.
On Sep 30, 11:08 pm, "chris thatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> One thing I didnt understand after the jquery conference was the specific
> algorithm behind the unique id that he
42 matches
Mail list logo
