[Prototype-core] Re: Dox Typo

2007-03-20 Thread Kjell Bublitz
Thanks for the heads up. I've updated the CHM version. On 3/20/07, Richard Quadling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 20/03/07, Mislav Marohnić [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whilst this will be fixed, is there a central repository (CVS/SVN) for the dox? If so, where? Not needing karma, just read

[Prototype-core] Compressed Prototype: Protopacked_v2d

2007-03-20 Thread jdalton
Instructions: * This pack contains the following compressed versions of Prototype: moo.fx Lite, 1.4, 1.5_rc0, 1.5_rc1, 1.5 final, 1.5.1_rc2 * The root folder has an example using one of the smallest Prototype 1.5 Final forms in this package. * prototype.js is

[Prototype-core] Re: Node Insertion Methods

2007-03-20 Thread Mislav Marohnić
On 3/20/07, Ken Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: insertAfter (complement of insertBefore) prependChild (complement of appendChild) addNodeBefore addNodeAfter I like these. I used similar ones for some time now as a part of an add-on script. I think these should be a part of the Insertion

[Prototype-core] Re: Node Insertion Methods

2007-03-20 Thread Tobie Langel
Definitely aggreed. Could we go for somethign a bit more consistent in the naming though ? append = Insertion.Top prepend = Insertion.Bottom addBefore = Insertion.Before addAfter = Insertion.After Best, Tobie On Mar 20, 12:15 pm, Mislav Marohnić [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/20/07, Ken

[Prototype-core] Re: Node Insertion Methods

2007-03-20 Thread Christophe Porteneuve
Hey, Tobie Langel a écrit : append = Insertion.Top prepend = Insertion.Bottom OK, but... the other way around! :-) -- Christophe Porteneuve aka TDD [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

[Prototype-core] Re: Node Insertion Methods

2007-03-20 Thread Tobie Langel
lol On Mar 20, 1:58 pm, Christophe Porteneuve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Tobie Langel a écrit : append = Insertion.Top prepend = Insertion.Bottom OK, but... the other way around! :-) -- Christophe Porteneuve aka TDD [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Prototype-core] Ajax.Request with method different from GET or POST

2007-03-20 Thread Thomas Broyer
Hi, I was about to use Prototype for its Ajax.Request facilities but soon noticed that the method has to be GET or POST, otherwise it is converted to a POST (as a new entry in the params Hash). What if I want to issue a PUT with payload in the postBody (er, *post*Body for a PUT?!)? params is

[Prototype-core] Re: Ajax.Request with method different from GET or POST

2007-03-20 Thread Mislav Marohnić
On 3/20/07, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Couldn't it be possible to have a rewriteMethod flag (eventually defaulting to true for backward compatibility) to turn method rewriting to POST off? Yeah, there's a ticket in the issue tracker for that. I think we should definitely have an

[Prototype-core] Re: Ajax.Request with method different from GET or POST

2007-03-20 Thread Sam Stephenson
Hi Thomas- On Mar 20, 2:23 pm, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I was about to use Prototype for its Ajax.Request facilities but soon noticed that the method has to be GET or POST, otherwise it is converted to a POST (as a new entry in the params Hash). What if I want to issue a

[Prototype-core] CSS syntax for node creation?

2007-03-20 Thread Colin Mollenhour
Just a thought, if a future version of prototype were to include a simple element creation method, what about using CSS syntax for specification of id and class? i.e.: var node = new Element('div#mynode.someClass'); Could the new CSS3 parser be easily reused to implement this? I looked at it

[Prototype-core] Re: CSS syntax for node creation?

2007-03-20 Thread Andrew Dupont
That's an interesting idea. Parts of CSS3 parser could be reused. You could certainly use the regexen we define to identify various CSS tokens. My first thought was that combinators should not be allowed in that syntax (i.e. new Element('div#mynode div.someClass'), but then I suppose you could

[Prototype-core] Re: Hash.toQueryString changes

2007-03-20 Thread jdalton
Michael Peters is correct. Since forms of type application/x-www-form-urlencoded *do not* add brackets to inputs so neither should this method. PHP is my primary server side language and our form elements are named 'foo[]' if we want them to become an array on the serverside. Its up to the dev

[Prototype-core] CSS syntax for node creation?

2007-03-20 Thread Ken Snyder
That would certainly be unique and powerful. What would this hypothetical class allow? Consider the following: Create and Append at Position-- new Element('#content div#mynode.someClass') Define Attributes-- new Element('[EMAIL PROTECTED]text]') Create an Array of Nodes-- new

[Prototype-core] Re: Node Insertion Methods

2007-03-20 Thread Mislav Marohnić
On 3/20/07, Tobie Langel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be in favor or having element methods which deal with both. +1 Four methods at most should do the trick. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

[Prototype-core] Re: Node Insertion Methods

2007-03-20 Thread Martin Ström
Don't use .down and .next with no arguments unless you need non-text nodes. It is very inefficient in this case. next grabs all nextSibling elements recursively (potentially many, extending each one in the process) and then just returns the first one. down grabs *all* descendants, then loops