QuackFuzed.com is the personal ColdFusion coding blog of Matt Quackenbush. It exists primarily as a place for the author to learn, and hopefully to assist others in learning and/or avoiding some of the same pitfalls and mistakes. (Quack certainly makes enough mistakes daily to make up for the entire ColdFusion community.)
XStandard + jQuery
Posted on March 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM in General, jQuery
We have used XStandard for many years now, and always used a JavaScript-free setup. When Firefox 4 came out, everything stopped working; the editor content was no longer being posted back to the server.
Latest Articles
- No recent entries.
Eventually something really brilliant and witty will appear right here.
Categories
- ColdBox (21) [RSS]
- ColdFusion (92) [RSS]
- Fusebox (3) [RSS]
- General (22) [RSS]
- jQuery (15) [RSS]
- Kalendar (1) [RSS]
- Linux (1) [RSS]
- Mura CMS (1) [RSS]
- Railo (1) [RSS]
- Rants (5) [RSS]
- Transfer (8) [RSS]
- Uni-Form Tag Library (36) [RSS]
Quick Links
Blogs I Read
Calendar
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | Apr » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Subscribe
Enter a valid email address.
The Obligatory Wish List
On 3/30/11 at 1:37 PM, Phillip Senn said:
On 3/30/11 at 7:45 PM, Matt Quackenbush said:
In the interest of full disclosure, it has been a _really_ long time since I have gone through the XStandard docs, so there might be something in there that would benefit you. But my guess is, unless you're wanting to generate XHTML markup, XStandard is probably not the tool you're looking for.
On 4/5/11 at 11:36 AM, Ben Nadel said:
Still love the editor though! Unfortunately, I have found it to be a bit junky on the Mac. I use it on my VM box.
On 4/18/11 at 11:11 PM, James Beattie said:
What reason did they give for the javascript-free implementation breaking?
On 4/19/11 at 2:21 AM, Matt Quackenbush said:
@ James - They didn't really give a reason for it breaking. About the only thing they said was that the non-JavaScript implementation is usually buggy except for in IE. Weird.
Back in the day, I was adamant that nothing should rely on JS, which is why I went with a non-JS implementation. Nowadays, though, it seems that pretty much every (well-used/liked) site on the planet requires JS in order to do much. As a result, I'm not quite the stickler that I once was about that. :-)
On 4/19/11 at 4:38 PM, Ben Nadel said: