Christof - You should bring those points up for discussion again on the jquery-dev list (they're more relevant now, now that 1.2 is out). The dev list is the best way to talk with the core developer :-)
--John On 9/12/07, Christof Donat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > The end result is probably a net enlargement of included > > JS, IMO. > > You can always include the convenience functions in your own code. Then you > have no net enlargement of code. You even can leave out those you don't > intend to use reducint the size of the whole js code. > > Of course you can say, that this speaks for using no JS library at all, > because cou can always define all the functions you need in your own code. > Well the reason for libraries is to safe work. Thus it is allways a ballance > between including expectedly much used functions and excluding less used. > More powerful functions are more likely to be used a lot than functions with > only a single, very special use case. > > Based on that I very much appreciate the decissions of the dev team. That way > leads to a library that is as powerfull as possible by staying as small as > possible. > > There are still some whishes I'd have to make some functions more powerfull. > specially those are text(), attr() and is(). There was a discussion about > those functions: > http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/browse_thread/thread/30e8d9ae2fc8b57e/d8cf031c88b1da64?rnum=1 > I guess, the core developers did not have the time to join that discussion, > though I'd appreciate their comments. > > Christof >
