Should keep it simple. changing .load to .ajaxLoad is even unneccessary.
>> 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/
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
