Dylan,

Thanks, I think I sort of have it figured out. Right now I have it
working which is great, although doing what you did, I am only able to
do it if I include the ID visually in the list, is there a way around
this to get it to not show, but still retrieve that value?

Thanks,

Jim

On Jul 31, 2:40 am, "Dylan Verheul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look athttp://www.dyve.net/jquery/?autocomplete
>
> Type 'vul' into the first search box, and pick a vulture :-)
> Watch the alert box.
> Look at the source code to see how it is done.
> Documentation is linked on the page.
>
> -Dylan
>
> On 7/31/07, Jim Newfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hello every,
>
> > I am new from prototype and am trying to change my methods to jQuery.
> > What I want to do is very familiar to me with prototype, but confuses
> > me when trying to do it with jQ :P
>
> > I have spent the past 3 hours playing around with the autocomplete
> > plugins on the site, and read their documentation as well, and nothing
> > seems to fit my needs. What I need is to somehow retrieve the id of
> > the selected item WITHOUT showing it, like I saw in Dan G. Switzer's
> > plugin. The interface plugin felt bloated, and did not work anyway.
> > For when specify the [value] I wanted that to be the value of the
> > field, but not shown.
>
> > Sorry if I am being unclear, but in prototype, I accomplished this
> > task by editing the result set that the autocomplete field sees. I
> > created a function that grabs the id of the first <li id="34">. So for
> > example, let's say we have a result set of the 50 states, and we
> > select California, and California's ID is 23. the <li id="23"> and I
> > just grab that with a JS function and plug that into a hidden field
> > element. VIOLA! It works, but I cannot figure out how to do this in jQ
> > because all of the plugins I have tried manually set the output style,
> > limit your values, etc.
>
> > So if anyone has any suggestions that would be GREAT! As I really do
> > not know where to go from here :)
>
> > Thank you.
> > Sincerely,
> > Jim

Reply via email to