The original claim of 20k is based on a packed JS. Not Minified. On the home page, it is packed at 26k. So it increased 6k. I wouldn't call the Bloat Police too quickly.
However, the POINT of gzipping is that you can deliver it smaller than 26k with a different strategy. Minified and Gzipped. It's not for everyone, but its available. RE: The julienlecomte article. I dont get where to put that script? Glen On 9/14/07, Brandon Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmmm ... jQuery can still be packed and gzipping can be done in IIS > without much effort. We are doing it for our .Net projects. > > -- > Brandon Aaron > > On 9/14/07, Stephan Beal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > >
