File input problem
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Help with a Table Wanted
Next: background shorthand
From: Mark Smith on 7 Dec 2009 08:31 On Dec 7, 1:16 pm, "rf" <r...(a)z.invalid> wrote: > Mark Smith wrote: > > On Dec 7, 11:54 am, Stefan Weiss <krewech...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If it's doable in jQuery, as jQuery is just a framework, it must be > > possible to do with pure JavaScript also. > > And just what do you think jQuery is? Not pure javascript? Just what do you > think jQuery is? Yes it is just javascript, a framework not liked round these parts, but it is just javascript - that was my point.
From: Mark Smith on 7 Dec 2009 08:37 On Dec 7, 1:23 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 7:38 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > > > > > I don't want to change the layout or behavior, I just want to make the > > > > "Browse" button look the same as all the other buttons on the page. It > > > > looks weird otherwise. > > > > No, the other ones look weird. ;) > > > So, you are in favor of getting rid of CSS styling of any buttons? > > > Nice. > > Don't you think having them work for most (if not all) users is more > important than making them match your site? Nothing wrong with > colors, BTW (just realize that they may be rejected by the browser and/ > or user). Best the padding, borders, outlines, etc. alone. Border and outline have no effect (in FF) Neither does width or line-height... It's these omissions that are cause for me to look for an alternative. > > > > > > Oh, and for anyone else that is interested, I found an option 5. Ajax > > > > uploads seem to be triggerable from script: > > > > >http://valums.com/wp-content/uploads/ajax-upload/demo-jquery.htm > > > > I see. And it uses what? > > > I'm just saying it's obviously possible to do. > > It uses one of the four (bad) choices you enumerated. And does it > quite badly, with jQuery (of all things). Good luck with that! > That's true, I didn't take the time to 'look under the hood' before posting the link.
From: Mark Smith on 7 Dec 2009 08:39 > Border and outline have no effect (in FF) > * Meant to say borders and padding don't work. - outline does.
From: David Mark on 7 Dec 2009 08:49 On Dec 7, 8:31 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 1:16 pm, "rf" <r...(a)z.invalid> wrote: > > > Mark Smith wrote: > > > On Dec 7, 11:54 am, Stefan Weiss <krewech...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > If it's doable in jQuery, as jQuery is just a framework, it must be > > > possible to do with pure JavaScript also. > > > And just what do you think jQuery is? Not pure javascript? Just what do you > > think jQuery is? > > Yes it is just javascript, a framework not liked round these parts, > but it is just javascript - that was my point. It's not a framework. It's around 70-100K (depending on version) of badly designed and implemented JS, largely centering on a CSS selector query engine. The idea is that it is somehow simpler (and cooler) to replace:- var el = document.getElementById('d'); doSomething(el); doSomethingElse(el); ....with this sort of gobbledygook:- $('#d').doSomething().doSomethingElse(); Now, if you are trying to save keystrokes (assuming you haven't heard of macros), this might seem appealing, until you find out it requires 100K of shifty JS to (almost) work, complicates debugging, arbitrarily excludes users, etc. Not to mention the pattern creates a new jQuery object on every line. Look at the code in that object and you'll find it's a horror show. But the typical jQuery-indoctrinated Web developer is not a programmer, so they never look at the code (and wouldn't be able to spot its shortcomings anyway). It's all based on blind faith, which has never been rewarded. Requiring constant upgrades just to tread water in the very latest browsers is hardly an indication of cross-browser success, nor is it practical as unit testing starts over with each revision. For those who don't know, I guess any result can seem like a reward.
From: Mark Smith on 7 Dec 2009 08:51
On Dec 7, 1:49 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 8:31 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 7, 1:16 pm, "rf" <r...(a)z.invalid> wrote: > > > > Mark Smith wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 11:54 am, Stefan Weiss <krewech...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If it's doable in jQuery, as jQuery is just a framework, it must be > > > > possible to do with pure JavaScript also. > > > > And just what do you think jQuery is? Not pure javascript? Just what do you > > > think jQuery is? > > > Yes it is just javascript, a framework not liked round these parts, > > but it is just javascript - that was my point. > > It's not a framework. It's around 70-100K (depending on version) of > badly designed and implemented JS, largely centering on a CSS selector > query engine. The idea is that it is somehow simpler (and cooler) to > replace:- > > var el = document.getElementById('d'); > doSomething(el); > doSomethingElse(el); > > ...with this sort of gobbledygook:- > > $('#d').doSomething().doSomethingElse(); > > Now, if you are trying to save keystrokes (assuming you haven't heard > of macros), this might seem appealing, until you find out it requires > 100K of shifty JS to (almost) work, complicates debugging, arbitrarily > excludes users, etc. Not to mention the pattern creates a new jQuery > object on every line. Look at the code in that object and you'll find > it's a horror show. But the typical jQuery-indoctrinated Web > developer is not a programmer, so they never look at the code (and > wouldn't be able to spot its shortcomings anyway). > > It's all based on blind faith, which has never been rewarded. > Requiring constant upgrades just to tread water in the very latest > browsers is hardly an indication of cross-browser success, nor is it > practical as unit testing starts over with each revision. For those > who don't know, I guess any result can seem like a reward. That's nice. Tell it to someone who is advocating jquery. |