Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by PommeDeTerre 4687 days ago
That's sort of a useless distinction to make, in practice. If jQuery isn't usable as-is, then it could very well be said that this problem is at least partially due to using jQuery.

Having to play games with jQuery to strip out or alter some of its functionality just to get it to appease Mozilla really isn't much different than any other bug that might need to be patched to get jQuery to work in a certain situation.
2 comments
leokun 4687 days ago
Can you use jQuery with Firefox OS, yes or no?. The answer is yes. The Firefox OS devs even provided the author with a version of jQuery that works as-is. Thus the title is misleading. Maybe it should say it is not compatible with jQuery Mobile, which would be less surprising, because it is a giant everything and the kitchen sink of a library that more closely resembles jQuery UI than jQuery. I've had trouble with jQuery Mobile and Android in the past.
link
nknighthb 4687 days ago
You're reciting how things are supposed to work, not how they are working. The provided jQuery version did not work. I do not believe you carefully read the entire blog post.
link
leokun 4686 days ago
I did read it, the provided jQuery did not work with jQuery Mobile, but it does work with Firefox OS.
link
nknighthb 4686 days ago
To quote the post:

"So I grabbed their code and tried checked if it would also produce warnings, and it did, almost as many as mine."

So, no, not so much. I believe you're confusing this with a statement made after it that does relate to jQuery Mobile.

link
fabrice_d 4687 days ago
"appeasing Mozilla" is not the reason that trigger these warning or errors. Privileged apps have access to more powerful apis but are also subject to a more stringent CSP (content security policy) to prevent running malicious code that would potentially hurt the user.

If jQuery's build system has options to create a version that is compliant with our CSP, I don't see any reason to be up in arms.

link
jeena 4687 days ago
It doesn't, or at least it is not obvious from the documentation how to do it (yet).

As the one person on the list mentioned, the warnings should not be the reason for the rejection because they were kind of false positives, the only problematic thing is that they were.

They are still working out the issues I assume, it is a really young platform yet so it kind of could have been expected. I just wish there was a possibility to talk to the reviewer and ask them more questions.

link