I totally agree that eventually it should be put in the core. I should have been more clear. I think it will be best as a 'plugin' for now to get all the kinks worked out. Keeping big changes like this as plugins will make it easier for people to test. I say big changes because I believe some of the issue lies in the way jQuery attempts to find the height and width of an element. The fx module depends on this quite heavily. I would also say that this change somewhat ties into seperating out the css logic from the attr method. I have actually been working on this part as well, making it a plugin for easier testing. I think there are several 'quick fixes' that could be applied but it would just clutter up the core and make it harder to maintain.
I also used 'plugin' pretty loosely. In this case it is not a new method but rather just overwritting the current implemention of a few methods. However, perhaps this is not the best approach ... it was just my thought process. -- Brandon Aaron On 10/13/06, Blair McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tend to agree with John on this - smoothing away these bumps doesn't make > a lot of difference individually, but all that polish in combination has and > is making jQuery a pleasure to use. > > Blair > > > On 10/14/06, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Okay so ... after looking over the code in the 1.0.2 release (and > > > possibly earlier versions) work just fine with the plain ol' show and > > > hide methods. However, the fx's show and hide methods just blow up. I > > > believe this type of functionality is going to be better suited as a > > > plugin. > > > > I disagree. While it would be 'painful' - I think adding it in to > > jQuery would be really good - that's why I added in the original > > hide/show hack. Rather than having more true features (since those can > > always be spun off into plugins), jQuery should have the "least amount > > of surprises". Having code behave as you would expect it to is much > > more powerful than having to apply hacks to work around problems. Do > > you agree with me? > > > > (IMO, the best solution would be to just make the animations just > > reference the technology in .show() and .hide(), rather than having to > > duplicate it all over again) > > > > --John > > > > _______________________________________________ > > jQuery mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > [email protected] > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > > _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
