Hmmm... interesting, Daniel... I think it would be a great project, to maintain this standards-compliant build, and I even think a lot of people would adhere to it... probably the big portals and websites won't, because they have a huge portion of users using IE6 and 7, but maybe small and medium-sized ones would...
Diogo On Jun 6, 8:19 am, Daniel Friesen <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not the point of this thread, but it got me thinking about something. > > IE8 doesn't have the same memory problems as IE6 and IE7 does it? > > Is anyone interested in pulling all the IE targeted code out of jquery > and checking out how much that speeds everything up for the other > browsers that don't need it? > Most definitely all that extra slow code targeted at memory leaks in IE. > > I say this while thinking of people who are working on project that > already use so much HTML5 features that they don't support IE6/7 > anyways. And also things like AIR projects where you are guaranteed a > WebKit environment where you AFAIK never need to worry about that extra > stuff. > > It would be interesting if we could maintain another build (conditional > comments?) which was targeted at projects which don't support IE > anyways, and environments like AIR where the rendering engine is known > and guaranteed. > > ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name] > > Sam Collett wrote: > > IE7 does have native XMLHttpRequest, but even then jQuery does not use > > it... I think because it does not work with file:// URIs. > > > --Sam > > > 2009/6/6 diogobaeder <diogobae...@gmail.com > > <mailto:diogobae...@gmail.com>> > > > OK... fine for me... but doesn't IE7 have its own XMLHttpRequest > > implementation, for example? I thought it did... > > > Anyway, the worst part is getting rid of IE6, because the majority of > > the users who use IE7 leave automatic update on on their Windows > > boxes... as soon as IE8 pops out in the automatic updates, we'll see a > > huge jump in market share from IE8... > > > Diogo > > > On Jun 5, 11:16 am, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com > > <mailto:jere...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > I can't think of a single thing that we could remove from jQuery > > that > > > wouldn't also affect IE 7.0. The JavaScript and DOM > > implementations in > > > IE 6 and 7 are virtually identical - and because of that there's > > > really no reason for us to stop actively supporting IE 6 (at > > least not > > > until both 6 and 7 are dead - who knows when that will be). > > > > --John > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Diogo Baeder > > <diogobae...@gmail.com <mailto:diogobae...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > Hi there, > > > > > What do you guys think of preparing the next versions of > > jQuery for > > > > IE6's death, when its use comes below, say, 0,5%, putting > > comments next > > > > to the methods? For example: > > > > > // TODO: Remove upon IE6's death > > > > > I mean, it would be great to remove all those workarounds we > > have to use > > > > only for IE6, like ActiveXObject... or am I wrong? > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Diogo --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
