On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Stephan Beal <[email protected]>wrote: > >> - We might (might!) use jQuery simplify the client-side implementations. >> This would include a new config option which specifies whether an embedded >> copy of jquery should be served or a copy from e.g. a Google CDN (offline >> usage requires an embedded copy). >> > Richard asked me to give him a list of pros and cons regarding jQuery, i.e. what would we gain by using it. It just occurred to me, though, that i have a web page dedicated to jQuery (admittedly dated because i no longer actively develop jQuery plugins, but i still use it in _all_ of my browser-side JS code). Here it is: http://wanderinghorse.net/computing/javascript/jquery/ And from long-gone days when i was active on the jQuery mailing list, an "open letter to non-believers": http://wanderinghorse.net/computing/javascript/jquery/openletter-jquery.txt i still stand by that today :-D @DRH: "the proof is in the pudding" (though i've never really understood where that phrase comes from) -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
