What is wrong with this DOM implementation? (test cases included)

What is wrong with this DOM implementation? (test cases included)

derososderosos Posts: 10Questions: 1Answers: 0
edited May 2014 in DataTables 1.10

is there any reason that this dom implementation would not work in 1.10? The page loads and the pagination (p) and the information(i) appear, but not the table itself nor the header with the length (l) or the filter (f). I'm using the tableTools as well.

"dom": '<"dt-top-row"Tlf>r<"dt-wrapper"t><"dt-row dt-bottom-row"<"row"<"col-sm-6"i><"col-sm-6 text-right"p>>'

Thanks in advance for any assistance!

This question has an accepted answers - jump to answer

Answers

  • derososderosos Posts: 10Questions: 1Answers: 0

    ... I should add that the DataTable renders perfectly if I comment out the "dom" reference..

  • sanjaypradeepsanjaypradeep Posts: 3Questions: 0Answers: 0

    if you comment out sDom, the data table comes? Then I guess you have a different HTML framework which is not letting sDom. I may be wrong too.

  • derososderosos Posts: 10Questions: 1Answers: 0

    thanks sanjay. This dom call works with the older versions of DataTables (using sDom instead of dom), and yes, when I comment it out when using DataTables 1.10, the table renders; so there is some change preventing this dom call in 1.10 that I cannot figure out....

  • derososderosos Posts: 10Questions: 1Answers: 0
    edited May 2014

    Here is a sample of the old version working: <a href="http://live.datatables.net/celikiv/4/edit" rarget="_blank">http://live.datatables.net/celikiv/4/edit</a

    here is a sample of it not working in 1.10 : <a href="http://live.datatables.net/celikiv/2/edit" target="_blank">http://live.datatables.net/celikiv/2/edit</a

    is this a bug or have I missed something?

  • allanallan Posts: 63,498Questions: 1Answers: 10,471 Site admin
    Answer ✓

    The number of < brackets doesn't match the number of > - specifically I think at <"dt-row dt-bottom-row" there is a missing bracket.

    1.9 was more forgiving than 1.10 it would appear :-) !

    Allan

  • derososderosos Posts: 10Questions: 1Answers: 0

    Thank you Alan, that was indeed it. Yes, 1.9 was more forgiving to stupid mistakes like this. I should have caught that!.

    Cheers and keep up the great work.

This discussion has been closed.