> e.g.:
> $( '.b0rp' ).filter( '#blap' ).on.click( function() { $( '#foo'
> ).ajax.load( ... ) } );Why no just do .onclick() and .ajaxLoad() - like what was proposed? Not only is it fundamentally easier to write and understand, but it's easier to implement too. The feasibility of 'namespacing' hasn't been brought up yet - but leave it to be said that it would be really really difficult and add a ton of overhead to the jQuery base as a whole (in order to continue chainability support). AJAX functionality is the one exception where I think a prefix is going to help. Instead of doing .get(), .post(), or .load() - having .ajaxGet(), .ajaxPost(), and .ajaxLoad() simply makes more sense. I also agree with the comment about this being '2.0'. Although, I think we might be able to spin this as a compatibility plugin. --John _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
