On 6/12/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This topic comes up every time a speed test emerges. To me, speed is totally irrelevant in most circumstances that I use jQuery.
It does, and it is. That was why I tried to open the consideration out a bit further to the eventuality of something more substantial running into the filesize cap. I'm of the opinion that the true goal is keeping the library (as) small (as possible), except that "small" isn't a number, so an essentially arbitrary one was chosen. And that's fine, otherwise "small" would continually be open to interpretation. Some people say they'd allow up to 25 or 30k, you say up to 50, etc. But I'm also curious to know that the limit isn't also arbitrarily absolute. I'm interested what sort of thing it would take to bring about a serious reconsideration of that limit, without even getting into discussion of the numbers that would be involved. The differences shown in this test, for example, don't seem likely to do it.
