|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the JQuery article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Removing alpha releases
- 2 How much does jQuery build upon other framework?
- 3 JQuery License on Page is logically wrong: "and" should read "or"
- 4 Too Technical
- 5 jQuery Mobile
- 6 Origin of Name
- 7 Should QUnit be a link?
- 8 jQeury and MS IE 6-8 "web browser" behaviour; revert 11 August 2012
- 9 jquery basics with example
- 10 Is MediaWiki detail relevant in lead?
- 11 Learn jQuery in a single move
- 12 Which version?
- 13 CDN
- 14 Balanced Reporting
- 15 Gzipped size?
- 16 Capilatlization
- 17 Links that establish notability for jQuery
- 18 Is a polyfill?
Removing alpha releases
I propose removing "alfa" releases from the list of releases. Any objections? Rationale: alpha releases are, almost by definition, unstable, short-lived, poorly documented, and are narrowly used by developers mostly for testing purposes. And we don't want anyone, especially a non-English person or someone unfamiliar with staged alpha and beta releases, thinking the latest release is 1.4a2, for example. StevenBlack (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
How much does jQuery build upon other framework?
The reason I'm asking is that in the source code that handles selections (sizzle) in the copyright notice it says Dojo foundation (http://dev.jquery.com/browser/trunk/jquery/src/selector.js) and Dojo is another js library. The question is how much else of the jquery library builds upon others? And shouldn't this be mentioned in wiki?
JQuery License on Page is logically wrong: "and" should read "or"
I checked the main JQuery website today, and they give you the choice of MIT license or GPL license. The page should be updated to reflect this supposed "dual-license". The page says and and it should be or. Please review @ http://jquery.org/license --220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this article too technical? I came to this page as a moderately technical software-tester who is likely to be testing JQuery functionality in the near future. I was looking for an overview, not a technical analysis. I'm non the wiser as to what the characteristics, capabilities and unique qualities of the language are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Is jQuery Mobile notable enough to merit it's own article, or should it be included as a section in either this or jQuery UI? It's still in development, so there may not be sufficient info for a full article yet.
Origin of Name
I had added verifiable information regarding the origin of the name jQuery. In the footnote, I indicated "see Comments section of page". Somebody who evidently didn't read this decided to flag the footnote with a "not in citation given". This is not correct. If you click on the "Show Comments" link at the bottom of the cited page, the comments become visible, including the following:
- John Resig (January 19, 2006 at 2:14 pm)
- Hi Kris – I was, originally, going to use JSelect, but all the domain names were taken already. I then did a search before I decided to call the project jQuery, saw your:project, and also saw that it hadn’t been updated since “October 26, 2004: JQuery 3.1.3″. So, I assumed it was defunct. Ironically, it appears as if you’ve started development :on it, again – once again causing a clash in names.
I am going to tweak the footnote to make it clearer. Citing certain web pages is problematic. I'll leave it up to whoever flagged it to take another look, feel guilty, and unflag it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenStrauss (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the citation needed template. The reason why is that this source meets the WP:SPS clause: Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. In this particular case, we're citing John Resig as a source of information about a piece of software he wrote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, of course; It does technically meet SPS. Comments posted to a blog don't exactly make quality sources, though... Do we even need to quote that he "sort of thought about naming it this other thing, but didn't", particularly when the mention is only made in such a shoddy 'source'? — Jess· Δ♥ 23:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
None of this really expresses the reason why "query" or "select" should be used; as a language that lends itself to animating actions on the client, neither of these is particularly intuitive. It would be nice to have this explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It primarily makes it easier to "select," or "query," DOM elements than the class .getElementById() and friends.
In the section named QUnit, QUnit is linked to a QUnit article, which however, ends up in the same page, same section. Shouldn't it be normal text? Why would someone want to click a hyperlink and see the same link he/she just clicked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harig074 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
jQeury and MS IE 6-8 "web browser" behaviour; revert 11 August 2012
While the plans of jQuery around MS browsers is an interesting and controversial topic, which is currently not covered in the article, it is inappropriate to list some details for a personal investigation in the introductory "features list". The challenge at hand is far from being one dimensional, and jQuery is as "cross-browser" as one can reasonably imagine. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the topic of jQuery and MS browsers versions IE 6-8 is interesting and relevant, author's approach in this edit is not. I will revert this edit a second time therefore. If we chose to cover the topic, it should become its own section, touch on the various contentious topics, and link to the existing pages in Wikipedia that represent the points of views. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed this; the IE6-8 thing heading threw me previously. My clarification is not specifically related to IE6-8. There is simply a fundamental difference between cross-browser and multi-browser scripts and there has been a lot of confusion about what these terms mean (particularly as jQuery and similar projects claim to be cross-browser when they are demonstrably multi-browser). All it takes is one bad assumption and it doesn't have to be a browser sniff (that's simply the most egregious example). Please see the linked explanation on the Cross-Browser page.
Thanks for your help!
126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
jquery basics with example
It will be good enough if anyone mention "jquery" basics with implementation example ,from beginning to deeper knowledge rather than providing historical and it's scope . I am the complete beginner don't know how to embed jQuery concept into already available java code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Is MediaWiki detail relevant in lead?
"jQuery has also been used in MediaWiki since version 1.16."
- No one reading this can be a non-wikipedian reader. It's logically impossible.Pagen HD (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- MediaWiki is the most popular wiki software in the world and MediaWiki≠Wikipedia≠Wikimedia. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Learn jQuery in a single move
In jQuery has also been used in MediaWiki since version 1.16, does that mean JQuery 1.16 or MediaWiki 1.16? Could somebody who knows the answer fix the article? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason to include the googleapis CDN instead of jQuery's own (MediaTemple) url: <script src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.10.1.min.js"></script> as per  -Theking2 (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- A reason may be found in the "Quick Access" column at the bottom of the page jquery.com or jquery.org. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thoroughly ridiculous to tick off a list of alleged "advantages" without a single disadvantage (of which there are many) listed. This much-needed adjustment requires thoughtful discussion, not a knee-jerk reaction from some random "democratic rock guitarist". Thanks.
- Sure, but these need to be NPOV and cited - and not by yourself :). Language such as "patently absurd", "ridiculous", "incompetent" etc. has no place here. Greenman (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, this article is not very balanced. I came here looking for the classic wikipedia page on a topic (an article that strives to be neutral, listing benefits as well as drawbacks) but was disappointed. To start off the thoughtful discussion, one potential disadvantage of jQuery is that, at 32kB minified and gzipped, it is larger than other libraries (say, underscore.js, which is 6kB minified and gzipped, according to chrome's developer tools) , and the impact on page load time could be too high for some use cases. Flimflam97 (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
For the end user the minified size is less important than the gzipped minified one as this is what's transfered over the wire (we, the jQuery team always try to minify the gzipped minified size, not just minified one). Perhaps it would be more useful to change the size column to reflect that? m_gol (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Links that establish notability for jQuery
- jQuery Cookbook Solutions & Examples for jQuery Developers By Cody Lindley Publisher: O'Reilly Media
- Head First jQuery By Ryan Benedetti, Ronan Cranley Publisher: O'Reilly Media
- Learning from jQuery Building on Core Skills By Callum Macrae Publisher: O'Reilly Media
Is a polyfill?
I thought jQuery was a polyfill (the first one.. maybe from before the word was made up, why neglegted?)? Maybe it's not (or more). It's mentioned there, but not listed as such. Say so here and there if it is.. comp.arch (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)