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 >
