On Tuesday 10 July 2007 12:02:39 pm J. Shirley wrote:
Right, and the people who use prototype are aware of the deficiencies
and work around them. They're not asking for support :) Marcus is a
smart guy, as evidenced continuously, but I'll never know why he uses
prototype :)
Likely because
--- John Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/07, J. Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/07, John Napiorkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's been said by others but I really prefer to
do all
this in my templates. It would be easy to have
this
in a Template Toolkit
YES PLEASE. I have been waiting for this for a long time. Please make it happen
soon, or I will be fired (for not getting ajax working). Thank you Cat
Community.
John Napiorkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- John Wang wrote:
On 7/10/07, J. Shirley wrote:
On 7/10/07, John Napiorkowski
On 7/5/07, John Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/4/07, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Prototype + Scriptaculous javascript framework is junk.
It doesn't work very well, the syntax is terrible, it will break other
javascript on the page just by being included, and the cool
On 7/10/07, J. Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
prototype.js and friends (scriptaculous, openrico, etc) are rated the
lowest in those categories. It fails the robust check by having
several things that don't play nice together, and also I've seen some
serious cross-browser compatibility
--- John Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/07, J. Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
prototype.js and friends (scriptaculous, openrico,
etc) are rated the
lowest in those categories. It fails the robust
check by having
several things that don't play nice together, and
also I've
On 7/10/07, John Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good to know. Do you know which Scriptaculous effects break Google Maps? It
will be useful for planning for the future.
Sorry, was too long ago to remember the specifics... it was a
mouseover event that attached to the document and thus blocked
On Jul 10, 2007, at 12:35 PM, John Wang wrote:
I think one reason prototype keeps coming up is because
HTML::Prototype exists and is the only wrapper providing Perl
access to JS effects. HTML::Prototype doesn't seem to have a lot of
functionality in it but it can get some small things
On 7/10/07, John Napiorkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's been said by others but I really prefer to do all
this in my templates. It would be easy to have this
in a Template Toolkit plugin if you wanted, but I
can't see the value of basically using perl as a code
generator for Javascript. I
It's been said by others but I really prefer to do all
this in my templates. It would be easy to have this
in a Template Toolkit plugin if you wanted, but I
can't see the value of basically using perl as a code
generator for Javascript. I prefer to be closer to
my sentiments exactly. Even if
i may be the exception, but i have no hesitation in using perl (or
other templating languages) to generate html, javascript, css, or
even more perl.
it may be harder to debug, but the productivity gains are worth it.
i think RoR's rjs stuff is really keen, too.
On Jul 10, 2007, at 10:08
--- Daniel McBrearty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's been said by others but I really prefer to do
all
this in my templates. It would be easy to have
this
in a Template Toolkit plugin if you wanted, but I
can't see the value of basically using perl as a
code
generator for Javascript.
On 7/10/07, Jason Kohles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 10, 2007, at 12:35 PM, John Wang wrote:
I think one reason prototype keeps coming up is because
HTML::Prototype exists and is the only wrapper providing Perl
access to JS effects. HTML::Prototype doesn't seem to have a lot of
On 7/10/07, J. Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/07, John Napiorkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's been said by others but I really prefer to do all
this in my templates. It would be easy to have this
in a Template Toolkit plugin if you wanted, but I
can't see the value of
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 06:23:21AM +0300, vb wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to use Prototype.
The Prototype + Scriptaculous javascript framework is junk.
There is absolutely no reason to use... Prototype + Scriptaculous
It doesn't work very well, the syntax is terrible, it
On 7/4/07, Jonathan Rockway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Prototype + Scriptaculous javascript framework is junk.
It doesn't work very well, the syntax is terrible, it will break other
javascript on the page just by being included, and the cool effects it
includes aren't even very good. There
On Thursday 28 June 2007 07:33:57 am vb wrote:
HTML::Prototype is the Matt's Script Archive of javascript.
possible, but don't confuse with prototype.js.
Same difference. The Prototype + Scriptaculous javascript framework is junk.
It doesn't work very well, the syntax is terrible, it will
There is absolutely no reason to use Prototype.
The Prototype + Scriptaculous javascript framework is junk.
There is absolutely no reason to use... Prototype + Scriptaculous
It doesn't work very well, the syntax is terrible, it will break other
javascript on the page just by being
HTML::Prototype is the Matt's Script Archive of javascript.
possible, but don't confuse with prototype.js.
(The engaged by a professional opinions is very important for my, but...)
I having prob with Html::Prototype with Catalyst.
A solution: use prototype.js as is, and not from
Hi,
This might be a pain in the neck to someone but please be patient if you read
the mail. I having prob with Html::Prototype with Catalyst. It works like a
champ with older version of Cat, but in the current version, the syntax might
be a bit changed and I just cannot get it.
I just tried
20 matches
Mail list logo
