Testing out an issue on the list. Please disregard.
Rey
jQuery Team
Test - please ignore
test post
I can't see any posts I post to this group, why is this, WHY is it at
all that you only read this forum if you're logged on to google??
most forums online you just need to register with the forum.. WHY
bring google in
either way, even after logging on to my google acct I can't see my
posts
Dear all,
I'm not sure if this is a jQuery question or not, but I got the following
code to work in FF, but it fails in Safari:
$(.thumb).click(function() {
var imgName = $(this).attr(alt);
var el = $(#dropdown);
if (el.is(:visible) $(#pic).attr(name) == imgName) return;
test
I'm working on a project where I need to detect if the browser
natively supports a given CSS selector.
For example, if I am using the selector 'ul li:first-child', this is
supported by IE7, FF, and Safari but not by IE6 and below. Is there a
way that I can test that selector to see if the
Hello,
Is there a way to test if blockUI is currently blocking a specific
element?
I am doing this:
$('#middle_right').block({
message: this.loader_msg,
css:{
border: '2px solid #ddd',
How can I test to see if something is a jQuery object, or a normal
JavaScript object?
andy
Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
implicitly relies on this. You don't really expect programmers to read
language specs, do you?
But this gets to the very heart of the language - the Object . And an
ECMAScript object is an unordered collection of properties.
On Sep 5, 6:32 am, Jörn Zaefferer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, but every other implementation does that,
No, they don't. In Firerfox 2 and 3 (and perhaps in earlier versions)
properties added to the window object are returned in reverse
order[1], in Opera 7 properties added to native
Is there really a lot of code that relies on it? If there is, wouldn't
Chrome break on many more pages? I don't recall seeing any code that
assumes an order.
--tt
On Sep 4, 1:32 pm, Jörn Zaefferer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
Guy Fraser wrote:
I really don't think it will eat in to FF, Opera and Safari - eg, you're
not going to see Chrome running on Nintendo Wii, it's not going to be
the pre-installed browser on OS X and developers aren't going to give up
Firefox and all it's developer extensions over night.
, September 03, 2008 9:01 AM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from
Microsoft and force
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steffan A. Cline
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:37 AM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
on 9/3/08 7:19 AM, Andy Matthews at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to getclicky.com, Chrome already has
core module failure is a bug in WebKit, and it is fixed in ToT, I
tested the Safari official release 3.1.2, it fails with the same
result, but passes on nightly build r36012.
The second one is a bug in V8 (or Chrome). It returns reversed
enumeration order of keys if the object is a literal.
On Sep 4, 2:00 pm, Feng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The second one is a bug in V8 (or Chrome). It returns reversed
enumeration order of keys if the object is a literal.
This is not a bug in V8. The order of keys is never guaranteed to be
in the order they are inserted or specified in a literal.
Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
implicitly relies on this. You don't really expect programmers to read
language specs, do you?
Jörn
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Matt Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:00 pm, Feng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The second
I don't think many read language specs, but I've heard over and over
(in books and online) that you can't rely on the order that you get
when you use in to set through keys. I thought that was fairly well
known. Nothing in the syntax hints that you'd get them in a certain
order.
However,
Matt Kruse wrote:
On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon Morée [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
- 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
I think everyone is missing the whole point of
: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon Morée [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
- 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
This looks like a bug
Makes sense because Chrome is based on WebKit just like Safari.
-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of timothytoe
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:49 PM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google
, Chrome already has 2.8% market share:
http://getclicky.com/chrome/
-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Kruse
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:49 PM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google
It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from
Microsoft and force Microsoft back to the standards table.
Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.
Rey...
Bil Corry wrote:
Rey Bango ha scritto:
Yep. You probably got that from TechCrunch and I tend to agree with
their comments that it's a spike due to the newness of the browser
and can expect to see that figure drop as people go back to using
their standard browsers.
Rey
I've tried chrome, very nice toy and
: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from
Microsoft and force Microsoft back to the standards table.
Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill
That's a key thing. Firefox has a vast ecosystem of extensions (approx.
5,000+ add-ons).
And in the interest of full disclosure,I work for Mozilla and I help
manage Mozilla's Firefox extensions site, http://addons.mozilla.org. :D
Rey...
Giovanni Battista Lenoci wrote:
Rey Bango ha
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rey Bango
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:01 AM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
browser to-date that has been able
OK. I think I see.
By the way, I just did some light debugging in Chrome with Firebug
Lite. You can poke around in the DOM, which is nice.
If anyone wants to try it, the best way to do it is with the latest
Firebug Lite (the one that actually FEELS like Firebug, based off the
old Pi debugger).
Chrome is pretty exciting as it's not just another browser but one that
sets to up-the-bar. I think it definitely gives other vendors food for
thought. As to whether it would kill IE? I'm sure it will take some of
IE's share but only after exhausting FF, Opera and Safari's market... I
Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2008 9:01 AM:
Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.
If your comment is directed to me, then you've misunderstood. I use Firefox.
I haven't installed Chrome, nor do I plan to.
- Bil
Hi Bill,
I was replying to your comment here:
Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million
Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either...
Did I misread this or was it said in a context that I missed?
Rey...
Bil Corry wrote:
Rey Bango wrote on
The lack of a plugin system is a major drawback that will hinder
adoption dramatically, especially among tech crowds. I have tried out
Chrome and admit that I am impressed with it's speed, simplicity and
specs, But I will not be able to even think about using it as a
primary browser till a plugin
Ca-Phun Ung wrote:
I totally agree, a plugin acrhitecture is a must! And it does exist in
Chrome! Plugins are referred to quite a bit in this excellent comic
strip [1] by Scott McCloud.
Ah, just correcting myself (I hope that's allowed here :)
As for plugins, Chrome will support
Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2008 1:09 PM:
I was replying to your comment here:
Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million
Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either...
Did I misread this or was it said in a context that I missed?
My comment was written
Dana wrote:
The lack of a plugin system is a major drawback that will hinder
adoption dramatically, especially among tech crowds. I have tried out
Chrome and admit that I am impressed with it's speed, simplicity and
specs, But I will not be able to even think about using it as a
primary
Chrome also has its own DOM viewer/console. To use it, right-click
somewhere in the document and choose Inspect Element. Not sure how
it compares to Firebug Lite, but it's another option.
--Karl
Karl Swedberg
www.englishrules.com
www.learningjquery.com
On Sep 2, 2008, at
I wonder how come google load pages half the time that firefox 3.0 does ...
thats so interesting..right now I use firefox for its firebug and plugins
and I use safari 3 because it takes small memory...
it is amazing that CHrone has 3% of hits in the internet
That was me. I was up all night trying every site I could think of.
On Sep 3, 1:38 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder how come google load pages half the time that firefox 3.0 does ...
thats so interesting..right now I use firefox for its firebug and plugins
and I use safari 3 because it
They started with a brand new codebase. No bloat from stuff that's unused or
inefficient.
_
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:38 PM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery
Ca-Phun Ung wrote:
Chrome is pretty exciting as it's not just another browser but one that
sets to up-the-bar. I think it definitely gives other vendors food for
thought. As to whether it would kill IE? I'm sure it will take some of
IE's share but only after exhausting FF, Opera and
Bil Corry wrote:
My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to. Guy
Fraser wrote that Chrome was designed to kill MSIE on corporate
networks. If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also
save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't hurt
Yes, I was about to say What plugin architecture??? hhaha.
Thats for the link though, its good to see that they are actually planning
it, even though I was pretty sure they would anyways.
Cheers,
Dana
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ca-Phun Ung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ca-Phun Ung wrote:
Dear folk ,for more information please check this Article which John Resig
performed
http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and his
partners are working with TraceMonkey
and developing it , he believe it is much
Please do not double post your message.
Rey
jQuery Project
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear folk ,
for more information please check this Article which John Resig performed
http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn
Guy Fraser wrote on 9/3/2008 5:22 AM:
I think everyone is missing the whole point of Chrome: It's designed to
kill MSIE on corporate networks - http://tinyurl.com/68lvhb
Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million Google pays
Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt
So you're saying that since Jon thinks TraceMonkey is better than V8
(despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you
wrote wrong?
On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear folk ,
for more information please check this Article which John Resig
Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Dana Woodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're saying that since Jon thinks TraceMonkey is better than V8
(despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you wrote
wrong?
On Sep 3, 2008,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8
There are some bits of TraceMonkey that aren't yet complete - it's those
bits that will tip the balance. There was a recent article on
ajaxian.com about it:
I realized from this ParagraphJOhn said : We already see TraceMonkey (under
development for about 2 months) performing better than V8 (under development
for about 2 years).
maybe TranceMonkey it is going to be better that V8 but as you all know it
has it's own problems right now
john Said : The
fore more information on TranceMonkey pleasecheck
http://ejohn.org/blog/tracemonkey/
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realized from this ParagraphJOhn said : We already see TraceMonkey
(under development for about 2 months) performing better than V8 (under
I guess well just have to wait and see which is best
On Sep 3, 2008, at 4:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realized from this Paragraph
JOhn said : We already see TraceMonkey (under development for about
2 months) performing better than V8 (under development for about 2
years).
maybe
Hi,
With all the buzz around the new javascript engine in Chrome, I
decided to run the jquery testsuite ( http://jquery.com/test/ ) on my
3 installed browsers (ff3, ie7 and chrome, on wixp sp3)
==
IE7:
Tests completed in 49734 milliseconds.
0 tests of 1270
Hi,
With all the buzz around the new javascript engine in Chrome, I
decided to run the jquery testsuite ( http://jquery.com/test/ ) on my
3 installed browsers (ff3, ie7 and chrome, on wixp sp3)
==
IE7:
Tests completed in 49734 milliseconds.
0 tests of 1270
I apologize for submitting this twice
To be honest (and plz don't take it the wrong way) but it means
absolutely nothing at this point as Chrome is still very beta and has
only been out for 1 day.
We will certainly support Chrome once it gets to a point where it's in
regular use but these issues are expected in a new product
On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon Morée [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
- 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
This looks like a bug in Chrome to me. It doesn't escape characters
when
Matt Kruse wrote:
This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
The code in param() calls:
for ( var j in a )
and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same
order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be
made, so the test should be
That sounds suspiciously like what Safari does in some cases:
http://dreaminginjavascript.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/a-challenge/
On Sep 2, 2:49 pm, Matt Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon Morée [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster
Matt Kruse wrote:
This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
The code in param() calls:
for ( var j in a )
and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same
order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be
made, so the test
From timothytoe
I'm not 100% sure, but I think you misread Matt's post. Matt
seemed to be saying the same thing you are--the order of keys
should not be relied upon.
If you take out Matt's post, the context for my reply may be more clear...
From: Guy Fraser
I've never seen an ECMA
I have a very large app that works perfectly in Chrome (with lots of
jQuery and jQuery plugs), so the omens are good. One computationally
intensive bit takes 14 seconds in FF3 and 7 in Chrome. Amazing.
On Sep 2, 12:45 pm, Guyon Morée [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
With all the buzz around the
I'm not 100% sure, but I think you misread Matt's post. Matt seemed to
be saying the same thing you are--the order of keys should not be
relied upon.
On Sep 2, 4:26 pm, Michael Geary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Kruse wrote:
This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
I understand Safari's limitations, but saying it's compatible sets an
expectation that it (all of it) will work.
I consistently had Safari crash when trying to use the html() and
replaceWith() functions. If you're aware of Safari's issues and only
run the test suite in pieces, then it'd be nice
I believe you misinterpreted the statement by John.
The *entire* test suite passes in Safari. To overcome the memory
issues they need to break the test suite into multiple smaller sets of
tests and run those. If the entire suite is run it causes Safari to
crash due to the applications memory
. but if you really want QUnit to have a
greater adoption, it should really be released as an offical plugin, and
include xunit assertions and namespacing.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-test-suite-and-jsUnit-compatibility-tp15882865s27240p18045595.html
Sent from the jQuery
I'm working on a site and the js is crashing Safari 2.0.4, so I went
back to check the compatibility page and it says it's supported. I ran
the test page ( http://jquery.com/test/ ) in Safari 2.0.4 multiple
times and it crashed EVERY time BUT at different places.
So...my question is, is jQuery
Jeff -
Safari 2 has serious memory issues that are impossible to work around
- simply loading and executing too much JavaScript will cause it to
crash (as you see with the test suite). We do run the test suite
against Safari 2 but in pieces to verify that it works as intended.
Yes, we still
Hi all,
On the Fluid Project, we have been using Edward Hieatt's jsUnit
(http://www.jsunit.net/
) for unit testing all of our code. A number of problems--including
the inability to use Firebug to debug failing tests--caused us to look
elsewhere for a less intrusive JavaScript testing
Test email.
Is there a small piece of code you can put on a page to test if jquery
has loaded?
Thanks
Is there a cool way to check if an object is a jQuery object as opposed to
any other object?
I tried the constructor property but it just says Object(), the same as any
other object.
Tried typeof, but same deal, just object.
Right now my function can take an object or a jQuery object as
test
my emails arent coming through
excuse for this test
Test
--
BrightLight Development, LLC.
954-775- (o)
954-600-2726 (c)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iambright.com
hello,
i'm trying to test a condition whether a link has a given class, and have it
return true or false.
if ($(this).attr(class)=='refresh') {
alert(changing page);
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
but it does not work, any idea how to do that best ?
thank you !!
alex
Please ignore.
Andy Matthews
Senior Coldfusion Developer
Office: 877.707.5467 x747
Direct: 615.627.9747
Fax: 615.467.6249
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.dealerskins.com http://www.dealerskins.com/
dealerskinslogo.bmp
Description: Windows bitmap
79 matches
Mail list logo
