Then we'll agree to disagree. And again, I'm truly surprised and
completely disappointed by your continued assertion that there was an
attempt to mislead anyone.
If you felt there was disconnect in the way someone might interpret the
link on the homepage, then making a suggestion would've been perfectly
fine. I'm sure John and the team would've been open to hearing about
this and possibly making a change.
But to accuse the team of being "underhanded", and now "misleading", is
irresponsible. You've completely mishandled your method of communication
here Stephan. If you can't see that you're choice of words was totally
inappropriate, then we most certainly don't have anything further to
say. You don't make accusations without having some basis in truth.
As for not offering to support users who might be confused with this,
that's entirely your choice.
Rey...
jQuery Project Team
Stephan Beal 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.
