On Feb 13, 8:08 am, Tobie Langel <tobie.lan...@gmail.com> 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. :)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at