Hi Alexandre,
Yet IMO the facts harshly presented by Stephan are to be heard.
Absolutely. I'm not asking him stop expressing his concerns. This list
is open and friendly and if there's a valid concern, we want to hear about.
Rey...
-----Original Message-----
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rey Bango
Sent: vendredi 14 septembre 2007 22:20
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: Downloading 1.2 minified, getting 46kb instead of 14kb
??!?
Being called "underhanded" or saying that the team intentionally mislead
people isn't something that I'm comfortable with.
Rey...
Alexandre Plennevaux wrote:
Personally, i think Stephen has a point. I don't see any reason for
disappointment in this, but the min size should be taken as a reference.
On a side note, on the human level, let's not judge each other on
alleged intents ("procès d'intentions" in French). It brings nothing
else than bad feelings and is completely not constructive. And we are
all here to construct, now, aren't we?
-----Original Message-----
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Stephan Beal
Sent: vendredi 14 septembre 2007 21:43
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: Downloading 1.2 minified, getting 46kb instead
of 14kb ??!?
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.
Ce message Envoi est certifié sans virus connu.
Analyse effectuée par AVG.
Version: 7.5.485 / Base de données virus: 269.13.18/1007 - Date:
13/09/2007
21:48
Ce message Envoi est certifié sans virus connu.
Analyse effectuée par AVG.
Version: 7.5.485 / Base de données virus: 269.13.18/1007 - Date: 13/09/2007
21:48
