I can respect your desire to maintain an open system for jQuery, and I can support that, too. I was just looking for a way to help plug-in developers and the core team afford the time it takes to maintain the core and the plug-ins well... testing, tutorials, documentation, provision of metadata, etc.
My concern is that those who are offering plug-ins will tire of the work and find themselves lacking motivation to continue and those of us who have become dependent on their work might find ourselves up the creek without a paddle when what we want to do with jQuery requires updating the core, but we're still using plug-ins that will be no longer compatible with an upgrade. And part of my motivation for a subscription system was simply to thank those who do so much work. I'm not (at this point) able to write plug-ins or provide much advice to others because of my inexperience with jQuery, but I can provide funds along the way to support the work of others from which I benefit. As far as helping build tools, I don't think I would be up to the task. I know very little about coding JS or even jQuery. I've just begun using it myself. I'm a decent ColdFusion programmer and run my own server for hosting, so maybe I could be useful with those services. Just out of curiosity, what is your main concern about a paid subscription service? If the subscription were very low-priced and the benefits were significant, I don't see how anyone would mind contributing to the effort financially. Thanks for your responses... Rick -----Original Message----- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Resig Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:03 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: How does everyone handle the constant updating of jQuery and plug-ins? I don't want a pay-for subscription system. I want a completely-open system that authors can opt in to. Having an essential part of jQuery being closed off is the antithesis of the project. Money is never the issue with the project, donating time and experience always is. Here's what we're doing, right now, to make this happen: - Building a jQuery/Plugin compilier, similar to the description of myjquery.com. We've been discussing this over in the jquery-ui mailing list and someone has already started work on building one. - We're working on refining a metadata format, so that we can then integrate it into jquery.com/plugins (Obviously, this will only go so far in helping people - if a plugin author is unable to test their code in IE, or in Safari, then it'll simply be left as such.) - On top of that, anecdotal evidence is incredibly important (voting, experience using the plugin) There's only so much that the jQuery team, or even plugin authors, can do. Currently, no plugin is perfect. There's a bunch that are very close - and we're working to bring those in close, refine them, improve their documentation and examples, and give them a solid stamp of approval. So this is how it will break down: - jQuery core, actively maintained, tested, documented, etc. - Official plugins, which are maintained, tested, and documented - All other plugins We're working on the first two points, but the last point is the one of major concern, and this is where community participation will help significantly, and tools around that are essential. Would you, or anyone else, be interested in helping us build tools to make this happen? Because having a paid forum or paid plugins repository is not the right solution. --John On 7/28/07, Rick Faircloth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John, et al... > > I think there should definitely be a place for community comment, > but I wouldn't want that to be the final word on whether jQ versions, > plug-in versions, and various browsers and versions work together or not. > Anecdotal evidence has its place, but with only limited authority. > > The authoritative voices on functionality and compatibility should be > those of the jQ core team and plug-in authors... they know the code best. > So rather than a tallied score from the community, I'd rather have authors > say whether something works or not. Again, there is a place for both. > A comments section on the authors' determinations would be helpful. A > rating > system for plug-ins or various combinations would be great, too. > > In the end, it has to be the jQ core team that insures that jQ is ready > for showtime. And it has to be the plug-in authors who offer up plug-ins > for community use who insure that their plug-ins are ready, as well. > > So... authoritative metadata from authors and anecdotal evidence from users. > A good combination, I think. > > And, again, I know this takes time and effort and people should be rewarded > for their efforts. I certainly wouldn't have any objection to paying a > subscription fee, let's say $10 per month, for access to a metadata site > that is well-maintained, always up-to-date, and can be counted on to provide > me with the latest and greatest in jQ to keep me productive. Otherwise, I > have to spend way too much time scouring the Internet trying to locate > plug-ins, > determine dependencies, checking versions, etc, etc... > > I think Matt's idea with MyJQuery.com is a good one, too. Having specific > distributions packaged, up-to-date, and readily available for download > would greatly simplify current and new users' efforts to get on board with > jQuery. > (I'll have to have a closer look at your site, Matt...) > > But once I start asking for more from those doing the work to make my life > easier, I think it's time I started paying up... but for those who might not > want to pay a subscription fee, they could always continue pretty much like > it is now, use the list to find suggestions, hunt through the various sites, > do your own testing, etc. > > How would everyone feel about paying a monthly subscription fee for access > to a metadata site that basically would provide everything you need when > using jQuery and its plug-ins? Make it searchable: enter some keywords, > like animation, slide-in and get possible plug-in combinations with the > core, > as well as dependencies and access to user comments. Or search for > "validation" and get the possible plug-ins listed for you. I know we have > searchable data on the jQuery.com site for plug-ins, but that only provides > information about the existence of a plug-in, not the really valuable > metadata > concerning compatibility, dependencies, etc. I want it all in one place. > > I'd be all over a subscription for something as useful as that...and yes, > I'd > be willing to build it or help with it, whatever... > > Thoughts? > > Rick > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Resig > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 4:56 PM > To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com > Subject: [jQuery] Re: How does everyone handle the constant updating of > jQuery and plug-ins? > > > Sure - I don't think that should be part of the metadata file, though, > since that's an action that the community can perform instead. (e.g. I > tested farbtastic 1.0 with jQuery 1.1.4 in Firefox 2 and it Failed.) > > The difference being that the Metadata would say something like: > "Farbtastic 1.0 requires at least jQuery 1.1 to run." > > Although, maybe this is a case where that Metadata information would > be made obsolete by the community-provided data. I just worry about > having community input in a matter like this. For example, it's very > common for a user to say "jQuery doesn't work in Internet Explorer" if > they encounter a bug - obvious jQuery does work in IE, but just breaks > in one case. Making it such that a user could completely wipe out a > plugin's credibility is disconcerting. > > Maybe the better solution would be to aggregate the votes together? > > +1, Firefox 2, Farbtastic 1.0, jQuery 1.1.4 > -1, Firefox 2, Farbtastic 1.0, jQuery 1.1.4 > +1, Firefox 2, Farbtastic 1.0, jQuery 1.1.4 > ------ > Result: +2, -1 for Firefox 2, Farbtastic 1.0, jQuery 1.1.4 > > Sort of like Amazon reviews (A review can have both up and down votes, > but they're tallied separately.) > > Although, if we're going this far, we should probably have this > supercede the voting system as well, changing the +1/-1 to a form > like: > > Version "0.9 / 1.0 / 1.1" of Farbtastic "worked great for me / worked > fine / had some problems / was unusable" in "Safari 2 / Safari 3 / IE > 6 / IE 7 / Firefox 2 / Opera 9". > > (With each item being a drop down.) This way we can collect popularity > and testing data simultaneously. What does everyone think? Would this > help you, Rick? > > --John > > On 7/28/07, Howard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > John Resig wrote: > > > Rick - > > > > > > We started work on adding metadata to plugins a while back, so that > > > you could know that sort of information (what version of jQuery is > > > required, what versions of plugins it depends on). > > > > > Possibly it's worth adding a 'last version tested' field (i.e. the > > *maximum* known-good version number)? There are a few plugins that break > > with a new release of jQuery (e.g farbtastic 1.0), and something to say > > definitively if they have been tested with a particular version of > > jQuery would be useful. > > > > Obviously, jQuery gets better and better with every 0.01 added to the > > version number, but it's not always backwards-compatible ;-) > > > > Howie > > > > >
