John Resig wrote: >> 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.
Why not just .request(method, options) or .http() After all AJAX is just a bottle of toilet cleaner ;), and a bit of a misnomer as a lot of calls don't even involve the X(ML). - Mark. _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/