Keep in mind that the namespacing that I'm suggesting is solely for readability, and should only be used where it makes things more readable.
You're right that it might put some bumps into the chaining, but I think that making the calls non-colliding and more natural-language-y outweighs that. e.g.: $( '.b0rp' ).filter( '#blap' ).on.click( function() { $( '#foo' ).ajax.load( ... ) } ); To me, it just kind of looks like the functions have a dot in them. One could substitute an underscore for the same effect, so it wouldn't really be "namespaced", but would still read nicely, and not be conterintuitive wrt chaining. If we do decide to use namespacing in this way, I'd want to lay some ground rules down. Specifically, only one level max, and the name must be 4 letters or less. Again, we should preserve terseness. - Brian > Not too keen on namespacing (is it really required? will make the code > more verbose and chaining could become confusing), but I agree that if > the API changes that much it should be a 2.0 release rather than 1.x. > Breaking changes should be the first thing people see before > downloading (or maybe second after saying why it should be > downloaded). _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/