Or comment just
toggler.apply($(this).next());
in the programmcode mentioned in the previous post, to leave the hover
of the A-element untouched
On 14 Apr., 13:54, edik wrote:
> Well I found the code-piece where the clik-event is beeing added to
> the span element inside of the A el
Well I found the code-piece where the clik-event is beeing added to
the span element inside of the A element of the LI element of the
tree. If commented out only +/- symbols collapse/expand the tree/
subtree.
Anyway it would be nice to have an option where I can enable/disable
this behaviour witho
I'm too searching for a way to change the click behaviour of the nodes
(without touching the plugin-source), so that ONLY +/- expands/
collapses the node and not the click on the SPAN element inside the LI-
element.
Anybody any suggestions?
Thanks a lot
On 10 Mrz., 21:04, Ryan wrote:
> Is th
The XHTML 1.0 strict DTD defines id as an attribute on the html node
(I haven't looked at transitional or 1.1 strict)
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'
>
On May 5, 1:15 pm, Klaus Hartl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Su wrote:
>
> > On 5/3/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Can jQuery
On 5/5/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately it seems that id is invalid as well:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.3
>
>
> -- Klaus
>
So I am back to where I started. Shouldn't put anything on the HTML tag
and there is no AND operation in CSS.
Seems like
On 5/5/07, Klaus Hartl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Su wrote:
>
> On 5/3/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can jQuery access the node and add a class to it?
>> Is this invalid XHTML?
>
> Class is invalid on the HTML element, but you /can/ assign an ID.
> Given that there should never
Su wrote:
On 5/3/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can jQuery access the node and add a class to it?
Is this invalid XHTML?
Class is invalid on the HTML element, but you /can/ assign an ID.
Given that there should never be more than one HTML element in a doc,
this is less a restrict
Glen Lipka wrote:
div.foo.bar {} works perfectly in IE6, IE7, and FF.
No, unfortunately not. IE 6 does not support multiple class selectors.
This won't be noticed in some cases, because IE treats the
aforementioned selector like
div.bar {}
-- Klaus
Rob Desbois wrote:
Just to extend on what Su said - you would never need a class or even ID
for the tag because there *is* only one (or should be anyway!)
So, to target it with a CSS rule you just need:
html { /* ... */ }
But as he says, why would you need to target not ?
Rob.
Even with
Hey Glen,
div.foo.bar {} works perfectly in IE6, IE7, and FF.
Beware of this CSS syntax does in IE6 (I'm not referring to the
jQuery selector of course; just the pure css selector). I've had
quite a few problems with it in the past.
I started putting together a test page to show you some
On 5/4/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
div.foo.bar {} works perfectly in IE6, IE7, and FF.
Holy Cow! Basic regular CSS. How did I not know this? How have I gone
so long and not known this?
This is HUGE. I have spent so many hours working around this problem. My
god. I am doofus!
On 5/4/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One question. Two answers here: It is Valid and it is NOT valid. Which
is the truth? It seems unorthadox to put an ID on an HTML tag, but I don't
see why it should be avoided if needed. (in rare circumstances)
Not sure if you meant me. I don
http://www.bennadel.com/index.cfm?dax=blog:680.view
http://www.commadot.com/?p=529
so cool.
On 5/4/07, Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess when John Resig says CSS descriptors he really means it
On 5/4/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5/4/07, Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I guess when John Resig says CSS descriptors he really means it
On 5/4/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/4/07, Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> valid means passes the validater. it won't
> works means works ... id'ing the html is weird, but should work in
> most browser
On 5/4/07, Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
valid means passes the validater. it won't
works means works ... id'ing the html is weird, but should work in
most browsers
$("div.foo.bar") might look good but I don't think it works. <--This
works! :)
$("div.foo").filter(".bar") would be my ch
valid means passes the validater. it won't
works means works ... id'ing the html is weird, but should work in most
browsers
$("div.foo.bar") might look good but I don't think it works.
$("div.foo").filter(".bar") would be my choice to do an and.
$("div.bar",".foo") might get you there too.
I wish there was a way in > CSS to say div.foo *AND* div.bar {color:red}
The comma acts like an OR statement. Why isn't there an AND statement?
div.foo.bar {color: red}
> I'm curious why you're going up so far, though. What are you doing
> > that you couldn't just put a class on the body instead?
>
>
I figured out a different way to solve my original problem, however, here
was the circumstance. I am working on a large web 2.0 app. Its using Jack
Slocum's EXT f
Just to extend on what Su said - you would never need a class or even ID for
the tag because there *is* only one (or should be anyway!)
So, to target it with a CSS rule you just need:
html { /* ... */ }
But as he says, why would you need to target not ?
Rob.
On 5/4/07, Su <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/3/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can jQuery access the node and add a class to it?
Is this invalid XHTML?
Class is invalid on the HTML element, but you /can/ assign an ID.
Given that there should never be more than one HTML element in a doc,
this is less a restriction than jus
On May 3, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Glen Lipka wrote:
Can jQuery access the node and add a class to it?
Hey Glen,
It sure can:
$('html').addClass('foo');
Is this invalid XHTML?
Unfortunately, I think it is.
How does straight JS get the HTML node?
document.getElementsByTagName('html')[0]
21 matches
Mail list logo
