Can I create a sortable with a list of dl elements?
I try something like:
Sortable.create(id, {tag: ''dl''});
where id = sistes_net2_Objetos (that exists) with out success
Some help please?
Thanks!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Garito <garito-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Can I create a sortable with a list of dl elements?I don''t have too much experience with sortables, but was running into a similar issue today.Try the elements option which accepts a collection of elements to create draggables from... Sortable.create( ''id'', { elements:$(''id'').select(''dl'') } ) -justin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Garito a écrit :> Can I create a sortable with a list of dl elements?You''re in for trouble. Proper markup for def lists requires child elements to be paired : one dt + 1+ dd''s. Sortable is designed to sort child elements *individually*. So I''m not so sure it''ll work with your case without some monkeypatching. -- Christophe Porteneuve aka TDD tdd-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Christophe Porteneuve <tdd-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> You''re in for trouble. Proper markup for def lists requires child > elements to be paired : one dt + 1+ dd''s.Assuming correct markup, I don''t see anything wrong with the desire to be able to sort DLs. I tried it last night before I posted my earlier reply and I was able to drag them around just fine. This is the markup I used: <div id="lists"> <dl> <dt>One</dt> <dd>definition</dd> </dl> <dl> <dt>Two</dt> <dd>definition</dd> </dl> </dd> And the Javascript: Sortable.create( ''lists'', { elements:$(''lists'').select(''dl'') } ); -justin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Mar 20, 2:38 am, Christophe Porteneuve <t...-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> You''re in for trouble. Proper markup for def lists requires child > elements to be paired : one dt + 1+ dd''s.Not true. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.3 Cheers, Andrew --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hey, Andrew Dupont a écrit :> On Mar 20, 2:38 am, Christophe Porteneuve <t...-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> You''re in for trouble. Proper markup for def lists requires child >> elements to be paired : one dt + 1+ dd''s. > > Not true.Now, Andrew! You''re being too circumspect. Speak your mind, man! :-)> > http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.3And that''s how you know DTD''s don''t convey the full intent of the specifiers. So yes, *technically* you don''t need to have dt+dd, you can just go dt for instance (or dd), although it''s semantically wrecked. I just checked and sobbed at seeing that the XSD and RNG for XHTML 1.0 did not clear this up… -- Christophe Porteneuve aka TDD tdd-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Mar 21, 2:53 am, Christophe Porteneuve <t...-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> And that''s how you know DTD''s don''t convey the full intent of the > specifiers. So yes, *technically* you don''t need to have dt+dd, you can > just go dt for instance (or dd), although it''s semantically wrecked.I didn''t mean to imply that a DL full of *only* DTs or *only* DDs would have any semantic value. I meant only to suggest that there are valid, semantic use-cases of DLs that don''t follow an alternating DL/ DD child pattern. Anyway, it sounds like Garito has a bunch of one-pair DLs that he wants to use as sortable items, so all this is moot. Otherwise he''d have to write some code to ensure that a DT stayed attached to its companion DD... and, yes, that would require ungodly monkeypatching. Cheers, Andrew --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi! Thanks for your help! After some test and some bug corrections I can say you could create a sortable with elements but with tag option and both works ok The origin or this threat was a bug. For so I apologize you and give you thanks On Mar 21, 9:45 am, Andrew Dupont <goo...-TiabPMV39B5K4mp1Ns0Z8Q@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Mar 21, 2:53 am, Christophe Porteneuve <t...-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > And that''s how you know DTD''s don''t convey the full intent of the > > specifiers. So yes, *technically* you don''t need to have dt+dd, you can > > just go dt for instance (or dd), although it''s semantically wrecked. > > I didn''t mean to imply that a DL full of *only* DTs or *only* DDs > would have any semantic value. I meant only to suggest that there are > valid, semantic use-cases of DLs that don''t follow an alternating DL/ > DD child pattern. > > Anyway, it sounds like Garito has a bunch of one-pair DLs that he > wants to use as sortable items, so all this is moot. Otherwise he''d > have to write some code to ensure that a DT stayed attached to its > companion DD... and, yes, that would require ungodly monkeypatching. > > Cheers, > Andrew--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---