Brandon Aaron wrote on 11/14/2007 9:11 AM:
Actually, it isn't outside the scope of jQuery and it is now fixed in
Rev 3822.
Thanks!
- Bil
Actually, it isn't outside the scope of jQuery and it is now fixed in
Rev 3822.
--
Brandon Aaron
On Nov 13, 10:34 pm, Brandon Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is pretty much outside the scope of jQuery :/. You should bind
> events that have the potential to be triggered before the page is
This is pretty much outside the scope of jQuery :/. You should bind
events that have the potential to be triggered before the page is
loaded within $(window).bind('load', fn). This will insure that the
page is ready to accept your events ... otherwise the browser just
isn't ready for you to intera
This is pretty much outside the scope of jQuery :/. You should bind
events that have the potential to be triggered before the page is
loaded within $(window).bind('load', fn). This will insure that the
page is ready to accept your events ... otherwise the browser just
isn't ready for you to intera
> Yes, please do.
http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/1911
Hopefully it will get the right eyes looking at it now :)
mike503 wrote on 11/8/2007 9:03 PM:
I also might try submitting this as a bug/enhancement request and see
where it goes there.
Yes, please do.
- Bil
On Nov 8, 6:39 pm, Bil Corry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That won't work because jQuery doesn't exist -- you'd have to use straight
> JavaScript. Probably the best solution is to make the event wait until
> jQuery exists. Seems like a task jQuery itself should take care of though.
Yeah this
I experienced this problem, and ended up wrapping these events inside
jQuery's ready function. That solved 99% of the problem. Of course it
still occurs, but maybe I missed some events :)
Bil Corry wrote:
mike503 wrote on 11/8/2007 4:22 PM:
What is confusing is why I can bind the event to
mike503 wrote on 11/8/2007 4:22 PM:
What is confusing is why I can bind the event to the jquery-
initialized object but the action inside the event is confused.
Perhaps I can try replacing $(this) with $("#theactual div name")
That won't work because jQuery doesn't exist -- you'd have to use
On Nov 8, 10:53 am, Bil Corry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I played with it a bit. It appears the anonymous functions being bound to
> mousseover and mouseout don't have access to the functions outside themselves
> when the page is first being loaded (perhaps they're not fully bound yet?).
>
mike503 wrote on 11/8/2007 3:16 AM:
Thank god someone else can validate this.
I played with it a bit. It appears the anonymous functions being bound to mousseover and mouseout don't have
access to the functions outside themselves when the page is first being loaded (perhaps they're not full
On Nov 8, 12:16 am, Suni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can see the error by clicking the tabs and quickly hovering over
> them. All the JS-stuff seems to be ok.
Thank god someone else can validate this.
> I'd first fix the HTML and then try again.
Thanks, I just yanked some code out of anothe
Interesting.
I can see the error by clicking the tabs and quickly hovering over
them. All the JS-stuff seems to be ok.
Only error I can see is that your HTML is incorrect, you are missing a
closing (the #bodyContainerWide div is nto closed). This causes
the DOM to possibly go wicked even on suc
On Nov 7, 2:17 pm, polyrhythmic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is likely your entire problem. The jquery.js *must* be before
> *any* jQuery code -- the browser will choke when it sees $ or jQuery
> before $ and jQuery are defined.
Oops, I should have checked before I replied. I have so many
c
> there is one thing - these are not placed *after* jquery.js is called.
This is likely your entire problem. The jquery.js *must* be before
*any* jQuery code -- the browser will choke when it sees $ or jQuery
before $ and jQuery are defined.
Charles
On Nov 7, 12:01 pm, mike503 <[EMAIL PROTECT
thanks for the reply.
On Nov 7, 10:19 am, polyrhythmic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are mixing your Model-View-Controller together with such 'links'.
> href="javascript: ..." is bad jQuery practice, and never recommended.
> It does not degrade in any way for users who are not running
> JavaSc
> Also any links that call jQuery related
> stuff can't be clicked before jQuery is fully loaded. Having the
> script towards the bottom can also mess that up.
You are mixing your Model-View-Controller together with such 'links'.
href="javascript: ..." is bad jQuery practice, and never recommend
If you click on one of the links, while it's loading that page if your
mouse moves over the other one it will raise the Javascript warning...
I've seen this exact behavior with other tip libraries jQuery based, and
others. I didn't fully track down the issue, but managed to minimize it
by wr
On Nov 5, 12:05 pm, "Sean Catchpole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a good reason why placing scripts at the bottom of a page is
> a bad idea?
wow I was about to come here and post the same thing.
I have a blog post about this:
http://michaelshadle.com/2007/10/30/handling-events-pre-docum
I'm writing a scriptLoader applet, runnning on $(document).ready(),
which: a) checks if a script has been loaded and b) if not, loads it as
needed. I think this will help some, and it's following along with the
whole plugin registry idea.
marlyred wrote:
I place all my scripts at the bottom
There is a noticable difference with scripts loading at the bottom of
the page. The page certainly loads and renders faster. However, if
you are running pngFix or roundedCorners there is a longer time before
the script can make the adjustments... So although I think it's
generally best practice
I place all my scripts at the bottom of my pages, just before the closing
body tag.
I think it definitely helps to stop the vsistor clicking the back button as
they can see the information they came for immediately whilst in the
background the javascript is loading.
--
View this message in con
I read it too
Have a look at it : http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#js_bottom
On Nov 5, 9:42 pm, Guy Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sean Catchpole wrote:
> > Is there a good reason why placing scripts at the bottom of a page is
> > a bad idea?
>
> > By placing them in the he
Sean Catchpole wrote:
> Is there a good reason why placing scripts at the bottom of a page is
> a bad idea?
>
> By placing them in the head all javascript files must be downloaded
> before the rest of the page can render. This seems odd since most of
> the time the javascript needs to wait for the
> Not true. Browsers usually pull linked files in asynchronously.
Not scripts. All script elements are evaluated in order as the
document is loaded. How else would you be able to have script
dependencies? :-)
On Nov 6, 9:05 am, "Sean Catchpole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a good reason why placing scripts at the bottom of a page is
> a bad idea?
The bad practice here is that where you place the script shouldn't
really matter. Your scripts should usually be made non-intrusive
enough to wait f
26 matches
Mail list logo
