> I'm personally not sure that the entire ajax.js should be part of the > core. jQuery to me is about DOM searching and manipulation. Its Ajax > features are excellent, but I wouldn't cry at all if I had to include > the ajax "plugin" or "official extension" or whatever you'd like to > call it, only when I needed it. I've actually done this on several > occasions when I wanted to save some bandwidth and I wasn't using any > of the ajax features. I've commented out ajax.js from build.xml and > packed my own ajax-free jQuery and it works great. It only saves > around 3k packed, but that's significant when we're talking about <20k > total. I realize that the politics surrounding not having the "ajax" > buzzword included in the library by default are a significant issue in > regards to developer addoption and jQuery marketing in general. But > it would further the goal of file size, and it really is pereferial to > the overall goal of jQuery.
That is a good point. It would be great to have a small core, consisting of DOM selection/manipulation and the event system. Everything else, including ajax and fx modules, is optional. To make this applicable, a nice build system that allows you to choose basic and extended plugins and create both normal and compressed files, without the burden of SVN and ant, would be necessary. -- Jörn Zaefferer http://bassistance.de -- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
