On Sep 14, 4:46 pm, Rey Bango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think "underhanded" is a little harsh and I'm not sure John Resig, who > is the one who put that up there, was attempting to do anything wrong.
Perhaps "misleading" is a better term than "underhanded", but only slighlty so. It would be poor form to upload 1.2 and say "only 46kb", after 1.1.x's claim to fame was "only 21kb". Everyone would think that code bloat had set in. But claiming that jQuery is now 14k is highly misleading - it definitely is not 14k unless the user takes (and is able to take) extra measures to ensure that he gets that space savings. > Considering how involved you are on the list and knowing how much effort > everyone on the project puts into the jQuery, I'm a little disappointed > that you would make such remarks. Just as disappointed as i was to see the "only partially true" link which claims that jQuery 1.2 is 14k. jQuery 1.2 (minified) is 46kb, and that's that. It can only be shrunk down with extra client-side support. Not everyone has the technical know-how for how to get it shrunk down. Not everyone has the administrative access to change their .htaccess (and those who can may not have access to mod_deflate or mod_gzip - my hoster doesn't offer them, for example). And those who are running under ASP/IIS environments might not have any option at all for compression. For them, jQuery 1.2 is 46kb. Likewise for people working from local HTML files, without an intermediary web server. The link on the home page claiming that jQ 1.2 is 14kb is going to cause a large number of posts to this list, just like this thread, asking if the size discrepancy is a bug. My answer is, "yes, it's a bug on the home page, where it is misleadingly labeled as 14kb." That said, i'll stop responding to those posts and will let others point the confused users to the proper entry in the FAQ.
