On Feb 13, 8:08 am, Tobie Langel <[email protected]> wrote: > > i know that #writeAttribute > > isn't 100% reliable, which was part of the reason why i was looking > > for an alternative to it. > > How so?
Ahhh, you got me there. i guess that wasn't a good phrasing. It should read more like "i've seen vague anecdotal reports that #writeAttribute isn't 100% reliable because of variations in browser attribute writing, but have not personally seen evidence of it in my own experience or others'." Such is how religions begin, eh? That said, i still wanted an alternative to having to make two function calls to serve the purpose of one. Even in the proposed solution above, #writeAttribute is still used each time, i just don't have to manually make that call to it. And i see Mislav's point in not butchering #request by naming it something else. However, since original idea (modifying the original #request to accept a url option) is still the only one that allows me to dynamically point #request at whatever server-script i want without an additional method call, i still wonder IF it's problematic to do so. Even if i used Ajax.Request and #serialize, it's still one task for the price of two calls. It was just a hypothetical, i'm not trying to twist anyone's arms off over it. :) -joe t. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype: Core" 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/prototype-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
