Stephen Howard wrote: > jQuery remains coherent and quantifiable, rather than an ever expanding > kitchen sink, > and we get peer libraries that the community knows will play well with > the beloved jQ. Remember the old Unix saw about doing one thing and > doing it well (aside from Emacs, of course). I think it ought to > pertain here as well. > You make a good point. Its similar to the idea of integrating a class creating facility in jQuery that came up a few days ago. Should this be seperated from jQuery as it has nothing to do with DOM manipulation? I'm not so sure, because most aspects of the class creation facility are already available in the jQuery code. This is also true for OnDemand-JS, as all the AJAX stuff is already covered. I'd like to see jQuery concentrate on its strength, but on the other hand, I don't like duplicating code.
jQuery itself claims to change the way you write javascript. With helpers like $.each, $.map and $.trim it does just this, without touching DOM, FX or AJAX at all. I therefore vote to integrate an On-Demand Javascript facility into jQuery. -- Jörn _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
