Hmmm ... jQuery can still be packed and gzipping can be done in IIS without
much effort. We are doing it for our .Net projects.

--
Brandon Aaron

On 9/14/07, Stephan Beal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 14, 4:46 pm, Rey Bango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think "underhanded" is a little harsh and I'm not sure John Resig, who
> > is the one who put that up there, was attempting to do anything wrong.
>
> Perhaps "misleading" is a better term than "underhanded", but only
> slighlty so. It would be poor form to upload 1.2 and say "only 46kb",
> after 1.1.x's claim to fame was "only 21kb". Everyone would think that
> code bloat had set in. But claiming that jQuery is now 14k is highly
> misleading - it definitely is not 14k unless the user takes (and is
> able to take) extra measures to ensure that he gets that space
> savings.
>
> > Considering how involved you are on the list and knowing how much effort
> > everyone on the project puts into the jQuery, I'm a little disappointed
> > that you would make such remarks.
>
> Just as disappointed as i was to see the "only partially true" link
> which claims that jQuery 1.2 is 14k.
>
> jQuery 1.2 (minified) is 46kb, and that's that. It can only be shrunk
> down with extra client-side support. Not everyone has the technical
> know-how for how to get it shrunk down. Not everyone has the
> administrative access to change their .htaccess (and those who can may
> not have access to mod_deflate or mod_gzip - my hoster doesn't offer
> them, for example). And those who are running under ASP/IIS
> environments might not have any option at all for compression. For
> them, jQuery 1.2 is 46kb. Likewise for people working from local HTML
> files, without an intermediary web server.
>
> The link on the home page claiming that jQ 1.2 is 14kb is going to
> cause a large number of posts to this list, just like this thread,
> asking if the size discrepancy is a bug. My answer is, "yes, it's a
> bug on the home page, where it is misleadingly labeled as 14kb." That
> said, i'll stop responding to those posts and will let others point
> the confused users to the proper entry in the FAQ.
>
>

Reply via email to