> I don't see why there can't be both. > > 'Hey, new to jQuery? Download this, take it for a spin, see what > everyone is raving about!' > > 'Developers, familiar with jQuery? Fine tune your build however you > want, just click here...' > > It's all about how we position the system and how we educate new users.
Fully agree! Providing a full release for newbies and as reference for documentation on the one hand and a custom build for further needs should be just fine. As soon as you are familiar enough with jQuery tp use the custom build, you won't worry about missing methods referenced in the documentation because you removed them on your own. -- Jörn Zaefferer http://bassistance.de > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:42 PM > To: jQuery Discussion. > Subject: Re: [jQuery] jQuery 1.1 by the end of Nov > > I have to say I absolutely *hate* the "build your own" library thing. > First, when trying a new library, I don't often know what I need, so I > end up downloading one set of files (click, click, click) only to > discover I needed something else (click, click, click, click) then two > weeks later I want something ELSE (click, click, click, click, click). > > I say, find a standard set of things that should be included in jquery > (personally, I'd ditch the effects stuff, as they're so minimal it'd be > better to just pawn those elsewhere) and focus on the expression engine. > That's jquery's bread and butter. > > One simple download link, and a nice page where developers can find > plugins. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Yeckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wed, November 15, 2006 12:03 am > To: jQuery Discussion. <discuss@jquery.com> > Subject: Re: [jQuery] jQuery 1.1 by the end of Nov > > I think over all do a mootools like download / interface jquery lib > download were the user can pick and choose components. > > Just to be fair the only reason it has two was to make perl regex users > happy :) I do use the perl regex though lol. > > > Jason Y > www.purepressure.com > > > dave.methvin wrote: > > John Resig wrote: > > > >> Right now, the jQuery compressed build is teetering around 18-19KB, I > >> really want to try and cut this down. Any thoughts on particular > >> features that should be extracted into a plugin? > >> > >> > > I know the macros don't account for _that_ much core code but they do > > complicate the documentation significantly. We have nice short names > like > > .attr and .css yet those represent the most-macroed properties. Then > we end > > up with (justifiable IMO) situations where valuable names like > .height() are > > taken by the .css("height") macro to save five--count 'em--five > characters. > > The same goes for the event macros, I think they account for more than > half > > the names in the API documentation at this point and they end up > creating > > situations like .unload() that are pretty hard to explain. > > > > I would like to see jQuery take more of a Perl path than a PHP one, > using a > > small number of consistent and powerful concepts plus the ability to > extend > > things with plugins. Perl has one simple consistent regexp operator; > PHP has > > two completely different regexp engines, each served by a dozen or > more > > differently named functions. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ -- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
