I vote for smaller footprint... I also think its quite harsh people making their own settled opinions on what the file size should be... I believe it should be as small as possible, not 'sub 100k', or sub '50k' - I heard comments from JS developers already saying 23k is a lot... as a front end developer I see it as a reasonable cost as long as the improvements are seen and or used. In my humble opinion if it was 50k, twice its current size, to settle some speed reports I would stick to using the old version - even upping it to 30k would seem rash in my humble opinion - I believe most speed issues could be addressed by better pathing or syntax considerations.
Dont forget http://www.dallaway.com/sloppy/ if you have forgotten what 56k or even ISDN is like... if you want integrity you want gracefulness however your site is accessed. Saying all this, for sites that do require speed as priority and can suffer downloading an additional file maybe a plugin would settle the issue? I love jQuery :¬) -----Original Message----- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gilles (Webunity) Sent: 13 June 2007 10:01 To: jQuery (English) Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite I agree with Glenn on this one. I vote for "more speed", we need to "fight back". Another 5k doesn't matter that much to me or my clients since all of them have caching on. Maybe an extra plugin?
