It's far easier to extend jQuery.expr[':'] than to extend the []
syntax, because the latter is hard-wired into jQuery.filter . You
would have to push a new regExp onto jQuery.parse before the usual []
regExp, something like (using Ariel's [: syntax) :
jQuery.parse.push ( /(\[:)([\w-]+)\s*([!*$^~=]*)\s*('?"?)(.*?)\4\s*
\]/) ;
jQuery.expr['[:'] = function (a, i, m) { /* filtering function as
above,m[2] == key, m[3] == type, m[5] == test string */ };
(not tested)
Haven't played with Sizzle to see if it's easier.
Danny (What adult still goes by Danny?)
On Nov 3, 11:26 am, Danny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 12:07 pm, Danny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Danny (a different Danny than the one who started the thread!)
>
> Way too many of 'em around!
>
> Question, why use the data() syntax in the selector instead of the []
> syntax suggested earlier in the thread?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
