Well, I'm not going to get any popularity points for saying this but I evaluated quite a lot of ajax libraries and I've settled for now on Prototype + Scriptaculous.
I'd probably convert to MochiKit if it had something to equal Scriptaculous. I know that there's some kind of port of Scriptaculous but as always it's going to code drift as Scriptaculous gets bug fixes/more features. I guess MochKit addresses things on the same level that Prototype does. What's really needed is an extension library like Scriptaculous. Something that's 'Python' flavoured like Mochi is but providing extras like effects, drag and drop etc. AFAIK there doesn't seem to be such a library in development (wish I had the time to do it - I'm in app development mode at the moment). >On Mar 6, 2006, at 6:44 AM, modmans2ndcoming wrote: > > > >>Can TG provide Rico as an option for the javascript kit? >> >> > >MochiKit didn't get a B+ for any technical reason, the scorecard >states that "This toolset provides a limited amount of dhtml compared >with most of the others." It's not really fair to grade MochiKit on >stuff it doesn't attempt to do, but whatever. It should probably be >in the unrated "AJAX only" group. > >The stuff that MochiKit does do, it gets right. Rico would be a >large step backwards in compatibility because it only partially >supports Safari (I'd have to imagine its Opera support is worse). It >definitely doesn't deserve the A- that the author gives it on those >grounds. > >-bob > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
