Sean Catchpole wrote:
.mask is nice because it's short, but .maskInput is nice because it's
more unique. I can think of other ways to mask and element. Perhaps
using both would be good:
$.fn.mask = $.fn.maskInput = function(mask,options){...};
This would allow the quick and dirty, but in case
its ur plugin... u r the boss... but i think u misunderstood my point. so,
just to make it clear... i am not a fan of long method names. i am all for
short and sweet.
My intention was to tell you that the jquery plugin architecture is such
that, each plugin is kinda a method on the jquery object
Thanks for the feedback. Does anyone else have any input on this. I
think I'll be pushing a new release this weekend.
Josh
On Jun 28, 7:33 pm, Josh Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As my masked input plugin approaches 1.0, I'm noticing that my plugin
isn't following the conventions of the
.mask is nice because it's short, but .maskInput is nice because it's more
unique. I can think of other ways to mask and element. Perhaps using both
would be good:
$.fn.mask = $.fn.maskInput = function(mask,options){...};
This would allow the quick and dirty, but in case another plugins also
I like it simple:
[x] .mask
[ ] .maskInput
-- Felix
--
My latest blog posts:
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Josh Bush wrote:
As my masked input plugin approaches 1.0, I'm noticing that my plugin
isn't following the conventions of the jQuery
I would prefer .maskInput as the method name, coz, it conveys both the
intention and what it applies to. mask doesnt convey where it applies to
and probably can be used for a more generic plugin.
Regarding, the namespace for additional methods. I agree that MaskedInput is
the one that actually
I would prefer .maskInput as the method name,
coz, it conveys both the
intention and what it applies to. "mask" doesnt convey where it applies
to and probably can be used for a more generic plugin.
$('input.date').mask(...) should be good enough to imply what is meant
I think. I used to be in
7 matches
Mail list logo
