[theme-reviewers] jquery 1.6.1

Tom Matteson perspectivevision at gmail.com
Wed Oct 12 07:16:25 UTC 2011

Dion ...

Okay. Thanks. So, it is by design. I changed my tags to make them open in
no-conflict mode. Now, the bundled version of jquery works. Well, that may
explain why I had reports of a couple of plugin compatibility issues with
this theme. Thx again.

*Best Regards
Tom Matteson*

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Dion Hulse (dd32) <wordpress at dd32.id.au>wrote:

> The only difference should be that WordPress uses the noConflict() mode of
> jQuery.
> As a result, you can't use $() directly, instead, you need to use jQuery()
> or a wrapping function to create the $() object.
> See
> http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/wp_enqueue_script#jQuery_noConflict_wrappersfor info on that..
> On 12 October 2011 17:17, Tom Matteson <perspectivevision at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Greetings ...
>> I was updating my theme after posting a question on this list a few days
>> ago. Part of my edits relate to enqueuing and registering scripts. In the
>> process, I was also reading on the WPTRT site about the majority consensus
>> regarding using the WP bundled versions of jQuery rather than a CDN version.
>> My theme was already setup to use a 1.6.1 CDN version. I know that with WP
>> 3.2.1 that jQuery 1.6.1 is bundled; which, is great. However, I discovered
>> the file wp-includes/js/jquery/jquery.js is not the same as
>> http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.6.1/jquery.min.js. They
>> have the same time-stamp & comments. However, there are not identical. I
>> discovered they are not the same jquery file because, when using the bundled
>> version, some mouseover or hover behaviors do not work my theme. However,
>> they work as they are supposed to with the Google API version. If I copy the
>> Google version into the bundled jquery.js file and save it, everything works
>> fine.  On the face they appear to be the same file. However, they are not.
>> This leads me to two questions. First, is that by design; are they supposed
>> to be different? Second, if they are supposed to be the same, should I be
>> submitting this as a bug?
>> *Best Regards
>> Tom Matteson*
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20111012/b41ac111/attachment.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list