Hello, I'm liking the Slider plug-in a lot, but I'm having some difficulty with overlapping, and any help with it would be greatly appreciated. The problem is, if you have multiple handles the slider seems to let them overlap and cross over each other. Is there any way to prevent this (and if not, would new options like "allowOverlapping" and "allowHandleCrossing" maybe be warranted; I can't be the only one out there doing this)? Also, I wound up tweaking the slider to give it support for multiple ranges (so that if you have 3+ handles you can color the different sections between them appropriately). Would anyone out there be interested in me submitting these changes as a patch (and if so, does anyone know who the "caretaker" of the slider is)?
Hello, I already know that you can combine multiple attribute selectors, &&- style, by doing: $("*[name='someName'][value='someValue']"); However, what I was wondering is, is there any way to combine multiple attribute selectors, ||-style, such that I could select: $("*[name='someName'][value='someValue']").add("*[name='someName'] [value='someOtherValue']"); with a single select? I'm imagining a syntax of something like: $("*[name='someName'][value='someValue'||'someOtherValue']"); (but, obviously, that syntax doesn't work). The repetition of "[name='someName']" seems unnecessary to me, but I can't figure out any way to get around it without an "or value=" type selector. Any help would be appreciated (even if it's just "no you can't do that, go bug the developers" ;-)). Jeremy
While I love most things in jQuery, one thing I don't get is replaceWith. This method returns the object you just replaced, which as far as I can see is 100% worthless, rather than the the object you're replacing it with. If you do: $.(someHtmlElement).replaceWith("<div>my div</div>"); There is no way whatsoever (as far as I can tell at least) to access "<div>my div</div>" after the replacement. You can access someHtmlElement, but that's not very helpful; if you're replacing it, you probably don't care about it anymore. I read on some other threat that this hearkens back to an early jQuery design philosophy issue. However, I have a hard time believing such an otherwise awesome library would make such a (seemingly) obviously poor design choice just for philosophy, so I have to ask: Am I just missing some obvious case where it would actually be useful to get the replaced element back? Or am I perhaps instead missing some obvious way to access the replacement element? Any explanation of this problematic (to me at least) behavior would be appreciated.
As a former MochiKit user I'm continually impressed by how well jQuery does everything that MochiKit can do, only better. However, there is one very minor convenience feature that MochiKit had that I miss: in Mochikit's abstracted event object (ie. the thing your event handling callbacks receive as an argument) there is a method, in addition to preventDefault and stopPropagation, called simply "stop". All this method does is invoke those two other methods, so it would be super- easy to add it to jQuery. If we did, it would turn code like this: function someCallback(event) { event.stopPropagation(); event.preventDefault(); doSomething(); } in to this: function someCallback(event) { event.stop(); doSomething(); } which (to me at least) seems a lot cleaner. So ... what can I do to make this happen? Who decides whether something like this gets added, and what can I do to convince them that it's worth adding? Thanks in advance for any feedback.