I like the concept. There are other beginner resources, but
approaching jQuery from a designer's perspective is a great idea. We
need to get more designers onboard. jQuery rocks for the nuts and
bolts sort of programming but, unfortunately, it's still catching up
on the UI stuff.
You do have a ty
I've used it with 1.2.1 and didn't have any problems. I didn't try
every method, though.
Larry
Chris J. Lee wrote:
> Anyone know if jqURL is up to date with jquery 1.2.2.?
>
> http://www.oakcitygraphics.com/jquery/jqURL/jqURLdemo.html?var1=1&var2=2&var3=3
Remove() does not delete elements. It only removes them from the DOM.
I don't know where they go, but they do hang around somewhere. It's
rather annoying, IMO. I have heard this may change in the next
release, so removed elements are actually deleted.
Does anyone know if this is true?
Larry
On
How about just using tooltips (or clueTips), instead of all that
custom code for each field?
You could even attach the tooltip on a little icon or question mark
next to each
field.
Larry
Kevin Scholl wrote:
> The plugin toggleVal (written by a colleague of mine) might be of some
> interest to
Klaus Hartl wrote:
> Hi Matt, currently external tabs like that are not supported. So far I
> was reluctant to implement that 1. to avoid bloat and 2. to me that
> seems unexpected behavior to have a tab open in a new window
I agree. At a minimum, you might at least add some sort of indication
(v
ould be
> > fine.
>
> > Just my two cents.
>
> > On 1/3/08, Andy Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Larry...
>
> > > I'm RIGHT there with you. Better to develop in IE, then move forward into
> > > other browsers. Better tha
t; Larry...
>
> > I'm RIGHT there with you. Better to develop in IE, then move forward into
> > other browsers. Better than getting cool code working with a "fringe"
> > browser, then finding out it doesn't work correctly in the primary
> > browser.
>
>
have found the error - my jquery.js was to old I guess.
> I have downloaded teh files from your page and now it works
> beautifully!
>
> Thanks again for your beatiful plugin, Hannes
>
> On 3 Jan., 16:55, McLars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hannes,
>
&
IEDeveloperToolbar is somewhat helpful, but kinda flaky. Honestly,
though, 99% of the time I just use alert(). I have Firebug, but never
use it since I develop on IE. As you said, that's what the vast
majority of (and all of our intranet) users are on.
I know that is contrary to how many develop,
Hannes,
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with your code. I assume you
have renamed the plugin files, since they normally begin with
"jquery." Otherwise, unless there's a syntax error in there I can't
see, it should work just like that. Are you getting any errors at all?
Thanks,
Larry
Jonah,
Thanks for the tip, I will think about that for future enhancements.
There's currently another thread where someone says the .clone()
method is slow too. In either case, I'm not too worried about speed.
The plugin is really only intended for adding a few drop shadows to a
page, just to add
I don't know anything about the clueTip. Hopefully, someone else can
help you with that. Are you sure Ajax is necessary, though? You say
you want the application to be snappy (a laudable goal), but it sounds
like there is a bit of a speed hit with the database. So, even if you
get the Ajax to fir
You can't assign an event to an element that does not exist yet, and
the "uncheckall_field" does not exist until you click the first link.
You could move the event assignment into the function that creates the
"uncheckall_field," but then you'd need to reassign the
"checkall_field" event later and
What clock? The clock disappears behind the menu bar when you use a
large font size. A few other bits go astray as well, but I've seen
much worse. I thought the BBC was for us old folk, anyway. I can't
wait until all these young designers start hitting forty. Maybe then
someone will actually think
I have seen IE act weird if you try to delete the owner of the event
from inside the event. In other words, "element delete thyself" can be
a problem. However, since the current jQuery doesn't actually delete
the element with .remove(), it just takes it out of the DOM, I don't
know if that's your
Is this for something like a FAQ? If so, a simple way to do this is
with a definition list, like so:
$("#FAQ dt")
.click(function()
{
$("#FAQ dd").hide();
$(this).next().show();
}
);
You'll want to pre-hide your dds, with something like $("#FAQ
dd").hide(); in the ready script. If
Yeah, it dawned on me later that the chaining/no error thing was
behind the empty array. I think the no errors bit is overhyped,
though. Other than the $('#id').hide() example, you aren't going to
get very far when a selection fails, and it will make debugging a
little weird if you don't throw an
t;0 but there is a better alternative. One case would be where you
> want to access a DOM property directly, so you need to know that the element
> actually exists before you do that:
>
> if( $('#id').exists() )
> alert( $('#id')[0].tagName );
>
> It woul
ld anyway. Better check the docs. Hmm...
> > The docs don't explicitly say what .is() does when the array is empty.
> > Better check the source code, and maybe try a couple of test cases to be
> > sure."
>
> > Where if I saw:
>
> > if( $('#id&#
e, it's important to keep in mind the language's idioms. In the
> case of JS, 0 == false, so if($("#id").length) is a perfectly good
> idiom.
>
> It's a bit confusing coming from another language (where 0 is true),
> but that's not a good enough r
First, since all of your functions do the same thing, you do not have
to repeat yourself. I would suggest either wrapping all the buttons
and textboxes in another element or giving them a class so that they
can be selected together, for example:
$('#wrapper input').click(...); or $('.buttonCl
I believe that is what $.data(element) does, it returns a unique id.
However, it only returns an integer number. I would prefer to combine
it with a few characters as well, but I suppose that isn't strictly
necessary.
Byron's function above is a good example of how you could use it. But
if you do
$('#id').length is the old school, and most widely used, technique.
This is probably the fastest.
$('#id').is('*') does make sense semantically (expresses the intent),
and is more flexible.
Larry
On Dec 25, 12:33 am, "Alexey Blinov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep... my code have size(). Forg
You should be able the use $(":header") selector to select all of the
headers simultaneously. I imagine they'd be stored in the document
order, but I haven't tried it.
Larry
On Dec 24, 9:23 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to select some items on my page in the order
Well, just to split hairs, the length property returns a number, not a
true boolean. You could also use:
$('*').is('#myId') or you can reverse it like so: $
('#myId').is('*')
The .is() method does return a boolean. An advantage is that you can
apply this to a subset of elements, for example:
Just generate a random number with Javascript, and throw in a few
characters for good measure. Like maybe the tagName followed by a four
or five (you could go higher if you'er paranoid) digit random number.
And/or you could use a time stamp of some sort.
If you want to go the extra mile, you coul
me techniques I've worked out that I want to blog
> about, but they don't fit in the "HowTo" class...
>
> I'm not against creating a Tips/Tricks section though. So if we get a
> few HowTo's or blogs that would fit there, we'll do so.. :)
>
> Sha
You could use the hover() method, instead of the separate mouseover()
and mouseout() methods. And you could also use the .toggleClass method
instead of the addClass() and removeClass() methods.
Larry
On Dec 21, 4:55 pm, rolfsf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've set up a simple action when a user
Shawn,
Bravo! This is an excellent idea.You know, this is the sort of thing
that makes jQuery stand out from the pack of other frameworks/
libraries. Getting started with any framework presents a significant
hurdle, and most seem to think publishing an API is sufficient. APIs
are necessary for re
Can you give us a sample of what you're doing now? I would imagine you
just need one procedure, probably when the page loads, that loops
through the table, hiding the second rows and assigning a handler to
each of the links in the first rows. The handler would find the parent
row () for the clicke
I think the delay is more than a new member thing. The list is nearly
unusable lately. I have seen more double posts (people probably don't
see their questions and resubmit them) and many threads are confusing
because the posts are delayed so long (people are answering questions
that have already
I don't know about jQuery, I doubt it, but apparently IE does have an
XMLSerializer. Of course, the syntax would be different. You can try
searching for "jscript xmlserializer" and see if that yields anything
useful. But then you'd probably be out of luck with Safari, Opera,
etc. You might end up
I have a quick, and stupid, question. When I use the remove() method,
elements are removed from the DOM, but they still seem to be hanging
around in memory. How do I completely destroy an element?
Thanks,
Larry
I added a new Drop Shadow plugin to the site yesterday. It creates
soft drop shadows underneath nearly any element, like text headings,
content containers, and images (including transparent GIFs). It has
several options, and you can experiment with it on my demo page at
http://eyebulb.com/dro
I have a new plugin that will create soft drop shadows on elements. It
works on text as well as block elements, and has options for the
offset, blur, opacity, and color. Please take a look at the demo page
(http://eyebulb.com/dropshadow) and let me know what you think.
You may download the plugin
Perfect! Thank you!
On Dec 12, 11:05 pm, "Aaron Heimlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> var emptyJQueryCollection = jQuery([]);
Is there an elegant way to create an empty jQuery collection? The only
way I've figured out to do it is like this:
var jqObjects = $(this).not(this);
This seems rather stupid to me. There should be a simpler way.
I need this so that I can fill it with jQuery objects that I create
inside a loop,
}) );
>
> };
>
> or
>
> $.fn.myMethod = function() {
> var returnObject = [];
> this.each(function() {
> // var newElement = something based on 'this'
> // returnObject.push(newElement);
> });
> return this.pushStack(ret
I have a plugin that needs to return a different jQuery collection
than the one it was passed. In other words, each of the elements
passed in the original collection will create a new element, and I
want to return the new elements instead of the originals.
So, instead of something like this:
$.f
39 matches
Mail list logo
