I´m not sure i follow you on this one:
> Fortunately, there is a much simpler solution. In your success callback,
> *call a function* and pass it your ajax result. In fact, that's the reason
> why there is a success callback in the first place. $.ajax calls your
> success callback when the ajax da
Actually the scope rules I described always apply to all JavaScript code,
whether it uses jQuery or otherwise.
They also apply to your $.ajax example. Consider your second version. You
have a result variable declared outside your validator code. The success
function is able to access this variable
Hahaha! You dont have to apologise for that, my mother should
apologise to me hahahaha
Ok thank you for your very good and easy explanations on this.
This was actually part of another qustion i posted here, these rules
doesnt apply in this example right?
$.validator.addMethod('userCheck', functio
I think you've got it! By George you've got it!
(With apologies both to you and to Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn!)
What you describe is not the only way to do it, but it's certainly a good
way.
You just have to understand what variables a function has access to. Of
course a function can access
Oh ok :)
So in order for me to pass arguments without triggering
clickFunction1 immediately,and instead triggering it when the link is
clicked, i have to call it through another function thats not passed
any arguments? So it´s still ok to use an anonymous function like in
my example to achieve t
No, the two examples shouldn't work the same. They are both working exactly
as expected.
Let me slightly rewrite each version in a more step-by-step fashion and you
will see why. The first version is equivalent to:
$(function() {
function handleClick() {
clickFunction1();
}
$('a.l
Ok, thank you for your anwer :) Appreciate it!
One more question.
If i use the code in example 2 the function gets triggered without me
clicking the link, in example 2 it gets triggered only when i click
the link.
Dont know if i´m doin anything wrong here? Shouldnt both examples work
the same?
1.
> You can still use jQuery.browser.safari. That property is true when
> the userAgent string contains "webkit".
Is that a no-no? It's listed as deprecated, so would prefer to avoid
it, but perhaps that's still the only valid way until we have more
features to detect?
-Darrel
> Now that we're switching to feature detection rather than browser
> detection, how does/should one detect for a webkit browser?
>
> Is there a known feature that we can check for that would Identify
> Safari and Chrome?
>
> We're running into some (rather minor) layout issues with some jquery
>
It would appear this is the inevitable result of us all using feature
detection rather than browser sniffing - essentially we're still doing
all the same stuff as before, but in a more roundabout way because we
need to test for features specific to a browser but - and this is the
important bit - n
it'd probably help if i included the link ;)
http://www.quirksmode.org/js/detect.html
On Sep 5, 1:15 pm, "ryan.j" wrote:
> It would appear this is the inevitable result of us all using feature
> detection rather than browser sniffing - essentially we're still doing
> all the same stuff as befo
Anyone?
Eridius wrote:
>
> Is the following syntax the proper way to bind and unbind event in plugin
> so that you minimize the chance you will unbind and event that you did not
> set?
>
> $(selector).bind('event.custom_tag', function);
>
> so if you take the following:
>
> $('#binding_test
12 matches
Mail list logo
