Is it possible to use jQuery to manipulate XUL elements?

Question

I know its possible to integrate jQuery within Firefox addons, but are we able to manipulate (animate, move, adjust transparency, etc) XUL elements themselves?

From what I understand, the Firefox addon can use jQuery to manipulate HTML/DOM elements, but not sure about XUL elements.

Answer 1

Short answer: Yes

Long Answer:

I experimented with it myself. I could only use it in a limited way. Manipulation of XUL elements is possible. But I am having a hard time observing events, since I am pretty new to jQuery - I don't know how to tweak it to observe events at Firefox/XUL level - I don't even know whether tweaking is required :D

Example:

overlay.xul

<?xml version="1.0"?>    
<?xml-stylesheet href="chrome://testaddon/content/overlay.css" type="text/css"?>

<overlay id="testaddon_overlay"
        xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul"
        xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

    <script type="application/x-javascript" src="chrome://testaddon/content/jquery-1.4.2.js" />
    <script type="application/x-javascript" src="chrome://testaddon/content/overlay.js" />

    <toolbox id="navigator-toolbox">
        <toolbar toolbarname="TestAddonToolbar" class="chromeclass-toolbar">
            <toolbaritem>
                <toolbarbutton id="btnHide" label="HideMe" onclick="hideMe();" />
            </toolbaritem>            
        </toolbar>
    </toolbox>

</overlay>

overlay.js

function hideMe()
{
    $('#btnHide').hide();
}

Above code will hide the button when you click on it - basic XUL manipulation with jQuery!

But as I said, try to observe document load and other such events and it gets complicated very quickly (or I don't know much :D).

Update: I tried some effects. Effects.fadeIn() works - but since the transparency properties are set differently in XUL when compared to HTML, the button stays there and in the end, it abruptly disappears. Now it is becoming clear to what extent we can (can't) use jQuery to manipulate XUL.

Answer 2

XUL and HTML actually deal with opacity the exact same way, and it is jQuery that incorrectly detects what the browser can do. jQuery thinks it's in a different browser when it's living inside XUL, and so opacity effects are handled differently - by jQuery. Since it IS in Firefox, and it should deal with opacity normally, you can override this like so:

jQuery.support.opacity = true

Do this right after jQuery is loaded.

There is probably a whole category of similar fixes that can be post-applied to jQuery to make it behave better, but I haven't looked in to it.

Answer 3

I was wondering this myself recently. Obviously the DHTML doesn't make sense, but the basic syntactic sugar and things are rumored to work.

• There is this jQuery on XUL discussion from the jQuery group which indicates that it loads up with some exceptions.
• Also see this slightly more recent blog post about jQuery and DHTML in XUL. That person is going after the HTML within the XUL which is not exactly what you need but he does have good information.