I don't know why either, but when I did switch to class names the
result was a big speed increase. I guess attribute selecting is a lot
trickier to do than class matching.
On May 23, 6:39 am, Klaus Hartl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daemach wrote:
You should definitely consider using a classname
I don't know why either, but when I did switch to class names the
result was a big speed increase. I guess attribute selecting is a lot
trickier to do than class matching.
On May 23, 6:39 am, Klaus Hartl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daemach wrote:
You should definitely consider using a classname
I don't know why either, but when I did switch to class names the
result was a big speed increase. I guess attribute selecting is a lot
trickier to do than class matching.
On May 23, 6:39 am, Klaus Hartl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daemach wrote:
You should definitely consider using a classname
I don't know why either, but when I did switch to class names the
result was a big speed increase. I guess attribute selecting is a lot
trickier to do than class matching.
On May 23, 6:39 am, Klaus Hartl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daemach wrote:
You should definitely consider using a classname
I don't know why either, but when I did switch to class names the
result was a big speed increase. I guess attribute selecting is a lot
trickier to do than class matching.
On May 23, 6:39 am, Klaus Hartl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daemach wrote:
You should definitely consider using a classname
Gordon wrote:
I don't know why either, but when I did switch to class names the
result was a big speed increase. I guess attribute selecting is a lot
trickier to do than class matching.
Ah, this is what I overlooked. Class selecting can just use the
className property, whereas attribute
On May 23, 1:29 am, Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am writing a script that scans a list of items that each contain
form fields and doing something based on the value of the field in
each item. I came up with the following code, which does seem to work
as intended, but execution can
RobG wrote:
If myElem is the ID of the form, that will containt all the child
nodes, you will then iterate over all of them. To get just the
controls with the same name:
var controls = $('myElem').elements;
This is completely Prototype syntax. In jQuery it looks like:
var controls =
If myElem is the ID of the form, that will containt all the child
nodes, you will then iterate over all of them. To get just the
controls with the same name:
var controls = $('myElem').elements;
This is completely Prototype syntax. In jQuery it looks like:
var controls =
Gordo,
Could be wrong on this, but you should be able to do something like:
$('[EMAIL PROTECTED]').each(function(){
thisVal = parseInt($(this).val());
});
I am pretty sure that will be faster, but not a 100% on that.
--
Benjamin Sterling
http://www.KenzoMedia.com
http://www.KenzoHosting.com
How about using a class?
I haven't tested it but I believe this is faster than using field names to
filter on.
--rob
On 5/22/07, Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am writing a script that scans a list of items that each contain
form fields and doing something based on the value of the field
The children of the container are the elements that decisions are
going to be made on based on the values of form fields inside them, so
doing the each on the fields directly isn't an option. I'm going to
use the classes idea, which seems more practical for what I want.
Thanks.
On May 22, 4:29
You should definitely consider using a classname to select items like
this. $('input.quantity') would be significantly faster.
On May 22, 8:29 am, Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am writing a script that scans a list of items that each contain
form fields and doing something based on the
Daemach wrote:
You should definitely consider using a classname to select items like
this. $('input.quantity') would be significantly faster.
I don't know why using a class name would be significantly faster. Since
there is no doucment.getElementsByClassName (yet), it doesn't make much
14 matches
Mail list logo
