D
David Mark
Who do you think? We just went over this.
Who do you think? We just went over this.
G
Garrett Smith
I asked you first. What're you shy now or what?
D
David Mark
LOL. Just tired of your amnesia-induced-endless-loop bullshit.
G
Garrett Smith
LOL. Just tired of your amnesia-induced-endless-loop bullshit.
Doesn't look an answer to the question. That can be taken as a
concession of the claim that someone deserves a "thank you" card (not
even Roger Gilreath, etc).
S
S.T.
All I'm saying is, based on ~15 minutes of observation, the jQuery
apocalypse you continue to rant about appears very unlikely to arrive
with IE9.
Perhaps IE9 will start a Dojo or YUI apocalypse and you can throw a
party or something. Stay upbeat.
D
David Mark
Since when do I answer to you?
And it's usually a waste of time.That can be taken as a
One thing's for sure; you are owed nothing (except perhaps the well-
deserved reputation of an amnesiac with inconceivably poor reading
comprehension). Same goes for "dhtml", "dhtmlkitchen", etc. Some
legacy that is.
D
David Mark
You are truly without a clue. The "jQuery apocalypse" has been here
for years (your delusions notwithstanding).
Dojo has never amounted to anything. Don't see a lot of YUI out there
either (other than on Yahoo's site).
I couldn't be more upbeat. Thanks!
D
Dr J R Stockton
In comp.lang.javascript message <0dcced05-a32c-41e8-9c5f-ba2be82715ab@a2
0g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 25 May 2010 16:16:12, David Mark
It means that, round here, $1.50 would not buy me a cup of coffee, and
that, therefore, you are wrong.
For dealing with IE, yes; it was only an example. There are differences
between various non-IE browsers; for example, one has a fault which in
certain circumstances give a display which is stable on other browsers a
nasty case of the continuous twitch. For that, of course, it makes no
sense to test for the aforementioned persistent IE error.
0g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 25 May 2010 16:16:12, David Mark
It means that, round here, $1.50 would not buy me a cup of coffee, and
that, therefore, you are wrong.
For dealing with IE, yes; it was only an example. There are differences
between various non-IE browsers; for example, one has a fault which in
certain circumstances give a display which is stable on other browsers a
nasty case of the continuous twitch. For that, of course, it makes no
sense to test for the aforementioned persistent IE error.
D
David Mark
It's a figure of speech, doc.
A very poor one as IE detection was the subject at hand.
Do tell.
Your posts often give me a continuous twitch. I suppose I asked for
it this time.
No, it would be better if you left such things to those who know what
they are doing.
R
RobG
From the new jQuery forum (trimmed for convenience):
| Verison[sic] compatibility issue?
|
| I've got a site with the following code already in place:
|
| <script ... src="/javascript/jquery-1.2.6.min.js"></script>
| <script ... src="/javascript/jquery-ui.js"></script>
| <script ... src="/javascript/json2.js"></script>
| <script ... src="/javascript/dialogs.js"></script>
| <script ... src="/javascript/adminutils.js"></script>
[...]
| I'm trying to add this feature to a page:
| http://www.clecompte.com/building-simple-jquery-rotating-carousel/
|
| If I just load up this code with my existing jquery library
| reference, it doesn't work. If I use a newer library (like 1.3.2
| used on the example page at the link above, or the latest version),
| it breaks other things on the site.
|
| As a temporary workaround, I've used an iframe to bring this in as
| a separate page, but obviously that's not ideal.
|
| I'd like to get everything working on the same page, but I'm
| not sure where to begin troubleshooting.
<URL: http://forum.jquery.com/topic/verison-compatibility-issue >
It was posted 2 days ago on the new forum and not a single response.
None.
Celebrating other's misfortunes is bad form - make sure you stay safe
though.
S
Scott Sauyet
David said:
The "jQuery apocalypse", huh? You keep using that word. I do not
think it means what you think it means.
It's simply *inconceivable* that a new version of IE will spell the
end for jQuery.
D
David Mark
Wrong. S.T. used that word. Note the quotes.
Yes, I saw that movie too.
It's simply *inconceivable* that a new version of IE will spell the
end for jQuery.
I don't think you understood my post(s) at all, did you?
S
S.T.
Not sure what any of that has to do with IE9.
Also not sure what responses you expected that poster to receive. Not
many psychics active in that forum.
D
David Mark
It has to do with jQuery's being tripped up by new releases of IE (in
fact they never have gotten IE anywhere close to right in a number of
critical areas). History is usually a good indicator and IE9 is going
to diverge wildly from the previous versions. What does that tell
you?
There is no one jQuery. It is constantly changed to "keep up" with
"current" browsers, leaving wreckage of older browsers in its wake.
Of course, the end-users don't know about this, except when sites
suddenly stop working. And they may not be able (or want) to upgrade
just to "keep up" with jQuery. Most likely have never heard of
jQuery.
The point is that this is the sort of corner that jQuery paints you
into. What does the typical browser scripting neophyte do when
presented with baffling compatibility problems? Upgrade/downgrade
jQuery and pray? And, of course, swapping it out may well introduce
other problems, which may or may not be immediately noticeable
(beginners are notorious for shoddy testing procedures, trusting that
things will "just work" in "all browsers" thanks to jQuery's magic).
In other words, psychics may be your only hope at that point.
R
RobG
No doubt it will cause the release of a new version of jQuery to deal
with its quirks once discovered. If jQuery users need to support IE 9
they will be pressured to upgrade to "support" the new version.
The link's relevance is that it shows that upgrading is not a trivial
task - firstly as the OP can't work it out and secondly because no one
seems to be able to help with even general information.
I would have expected a helpful response, either addressing the
question or asking for more information. The question was pretty
simple:
| "I realize there could be problems with some of the
| other javascript, but I was wondering if someone could
| point me in the right direction with regard to any
| possible jquery issues [upgrading from version 1.2.6]."
That should be a common enough task that someone could provide general
pointers, or even be an FAQ entry. If the requirement is really that
hard to understand, the regulars of that forum could have asked for
more information.
S
S.T.
Upgrading is trivial. Granted, I have a modest knowledge of JS and
pretty thorough understanding of the library's API so that helps.
If someone just copied/pasted a tutorial, saw that it worked and
therefore never bothered to learn the jQuery API or basic JS... well...
they're probably gonna struggle to upgrade. However that seems like the
user's fault, not the library.
jQuery's a crutch, not a cure-all. Still have to learn how to debug a
script.
The sample code that poster provided linked to three unknown scripts,
included a couple unreferenced functions, provided no URL. I suppose
someone could have pointed him/her to:
http://docs.jquery.com/Release:jQuery_1.3#Upgrading
.... but I'm not surprised no one bothered.
I can only imagine the reception that poster would have received here
with that caliber of question.