{"issue":{"user":{"id":177773,"login":"paulredmond","url":"https://api.github.com/users/paulredmond","gravatar_id":"d9691184a54bfa1defe3dc7d625bc959","avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d9691184a54bfa1defe3dc7d625bc959?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png"},"milestone":null,"created_at":"2011-12-15T23:27:14Z","title":"Skipping non-standard layerX and layerY. Reference to the original event...","labels":[],"state":"open","updated_at":"2011-12-16T01:20:56Z","id":2574189,"html_url":"https://github.com/fat/bean/issues/47","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"patch_url":"https://github.com/fat/bean/pull/47.patch","html_url":"https://github.com/fat/bean/pull/47","diff_url":"https://github.com/fat/bean/pull/47.diff"},"number":47,"body":"Chrome is ditching non-standard layerX and layerY properties and generates tons of console warnings:\r\n\r\n\"event.layerX and event.layerY are broken and deprecated in WebKit. They will be removed from the engine in the near future.\" Affects Chrome 16x\r\n\r\nIssue documented here: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=101733\r\n\r\njQuery 1.7 removed these in 1.7 as well, reference (see Removed Features): http://blog.jquery.com/2011/11/03/jquery-1-7-released/\r\n\r\n* Built and ran tests successfully before sending pull request.","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/fat/bean/issues/47","comments":2,"assignee":null},"comment":{"user":{"id":495647,"login":"rvagg","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rvagg","gravatar_id":"026f5af604a336a38301639027757f29","avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/026f5af604a336a38301639027757f29?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png"},"created_at":"2011-12-16T01:20:56Z","updated_at":"2011-12-16T01:20:56Z","id":3171982,"body":"See also #46 and #39\r\nI like that you've split up the properties but I don't think the `.split()` is a great idea on each call, best if that's done once at init. ","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/fat/bean/issues/comments/3171982"},"action":"created"}