[tw] Re: jQuery animate

2010-08-14 Thread PMario
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ /\__\ /\ \ /\ \/\__\ /\ \ /:/ //::\ \ /::\ \ /:/ //::\ \ /:/ //:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \/:/ //:/\:\ \ /:/ //::\~\:\ \ /:/ \:\ \ /:/ //::\~\:\ \ /:/__//:/

[tw] Re: jQuery animate

2010-08-14 Thread Tobias Beer
That's the way, aha, aha, I like it, aha, aha... ;o) On 14 Aug., 01:45, PMario wrote: > Hi Jazz > It does work. But it needs some tweaking. [1] > > Most of the stuff is not needed in tw. , .. can be > removed. document.ready is not needed because if TW is active. The > document is ready.

[tw] Re: jQuery animate

2010-08-13 Thread PMario
Hi Jazz It does work. But it needs some tweaking. [1] Most of the stuff is not needed in tw. , .. can be removed. document.ready is not needed because if TW is active. The document is ready.

[tw] Re: jQuery animate

2010-08-13 Thread Kashgarinn
Hehe, even though what FND just said is totally true, he didn't really explain the whys. You can't use raw HTML code, because you're either displaying text, calling a already defined macro, or you're running javascript which defines macros/stuff you can run. If you're not interested in delving de

[tw] Re: jQuery animate

2010-08-12 Thread Jazz
> Dumping raw HTML in a tiddler is generally a bad idea. > In this particular case, the main issue is the use of jQuery's ready > method - that has no meaning within TiddlyWiki. Additionally, TiddlyWiki > does not use the $ by default, plus SCRIPT tags are not allowed within > raw HTML blocks. > >