Agreed. Cookies are rarely used, if compared with other functionalities that jQuery supports today. Also, as constantly commented here at this discussion list, it's always good to avoid putting more funcionalities into the core, if they can (an makes sense that they) stay outside of it, for us not to turn it into a heavy- weighted library.
Mike, what is the problem of having a plugin for cookies, instead of in the core, in your point of view? Regards, Diogo On Aug 20, 9:27 pm, lrbabe <lrb...@gmail.com> wrote: > True, but jQuery needs at least a "standard" version that Google can > put on it CDN to please most developers. > It seems that these days developers need ajax and effects. And > cookies? not so much... > > On Aug 21, 12:54 am, Daniel Friesen <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > And I've worked on projects that don't need ajax or fx. > > I think this falls under the category of wanting a buildable jQuery > > where you can disable things you don't need, and enable extra features > > that you might want. > > > ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name] > > > lrbabe wrote: > > > Hello Miksh, > > > > Most of my projects do not make use of any cookies. > > > It is just perfect as a plugin. > > > > On Aug 20, 3:07 pm, miksh <msha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > > > >> Cookie is a common and widely used functionality so it is deserved to > > >> be added into jQuery.Utilities rather than to be just a plug-in. > > > >> Thanks > > >> Mike --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
