Sure - I don't think that should be part of the metadata file, though, since that's an action that the community can perform instead. (e.g. I tested farbtastic 1.0 with jQuery 1.1.4 in Firefox 2 and it Failed.)
The difference being that the Metadata would say something like: "Farbtastic 1.0 requires at least jQuery 1.1 to run." Although, maybe this is a case where that Metadata information would be made obsolete by the community-provided data. I just worry about having community input in a matter like this. For example, it's very common for a user to say "jQuery doesn't work in Internet Explorer" if they encounter a bug - obvious jQuery does work in IE, but just breaks in one case. Making it such that a user could completely wipe out a plugin's credibility is disconcerting. Maybe the better solution would be to aggregate the votes together? +1, Firefox 2, Farbtastic 1.0, jQuery 1.1.4 -1, Firefox 2, Farbtastic 1.0, jQuery 1.1.4 +1, Firefox 2, Farbtastic 1.0, jQuery 1.1.4 ------ Result: +2, -1 for Firefox 2, Farbtastic 1.0, jQuery 1.1.4 Sort of like Amazon reviews (A review can have both up and down votes, but they're tallied separately.) Although, if we're going this far, we should probably have this supercede the voting system as well, changing the +1/-1 to a form like: Version "0.9 / 1.0 / 1.1" of Farbtastic "worked great for me / worked fine / had some problems / was unusable" in "Safari 2 / Safari 3 / IE 6 / IE 7 / Firefox 2 / Opera 9". (With each item being a drop down.) This way we can collect popularity and testing data simultaneously. What does everyone think? Would this help you, Rick? --John On 7/28/07, Howard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John Resig wrote: > > Rick - > > > > We started work on adding metadata to plugins a while back, so that > > you could know that sort of information (what version of jQuery is > > required, what versions of plugins it depends on). > > > Possibly it's worth adding a 'last version tested' field (i.e. the > *maximum* known-good version number)? There are a few plugins that break > with a new release of jQuery (e.g farbtastic 1.0), and something to say > definitively if they have been tested with a particular version of > jQuery would be useful. > > Obviously, jQuery gets better and better with every 0.01 added to the > version number, but it's not always backwards-compatible ;-) > > Howie >
