I understand the point. Distribution and portability are easier with embedded code. However, TW 2.5.0 already includes the separate file TiddlySaver.jar, so complete portability involves copying two files. With a separate jQuery directory, one could keep the old version of jQuery and still try a new one simply by having two directories and renaming them.
A good compromise might be having two versions of TW, one with the embedded jQuery and one with a separate library. This is what one version of tinytiddly did with the TW code itself, which partly motivated my question. One would think that if the TW code resided in a separate js file, jQuery would too. On Jun 21, 1:10 am, "Mark S." <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 20, 7:46 pm, Swampy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2. TW 2.5.0 includes jQuery. However, jQuery is usually loaded from a > > separate file [3], but the HTML file for TW 2.5.0 has jQuery embedded. > > Is this the complete jQuery? Why embed it instead of keeping it a > > separate file (so that one can update jQuery without having to update > > TW)? > > Just speaking as a user of TW, if jQuery wasn't embedded, I would > either have to always be working with an internet connection, or > always carry along the library file. Either of these would detract > from the "throw-it-on-stick" portability and charm of TW. Further, > upgrading jQuery apart from the rest of the TW code might result in > some subtle incompatibility. Unless there's some particular new "super- > cool" feature in a recent release of jQuery, why not just wait and use > the built-in upgrade technology? > > /Mark*S/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
