18 Jun
2012
18 Jun
'12
7:05 p.m.
I know, I wasn't expecting magic to happen over night. A smooth base is
welcomed, steps ahead on a designer friendly path are a plus for sure. Glad
to see all the support thus far.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On 06/18/2012 05:21 AM, Ionut Maxim wrote:
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
______________________________**_________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/**mailman/listinfo/devs<http://lists.xwiki.org/ma…
--
Ionut MAXIM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Web Designer @ XWiki SAS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
+40755120711 | www.xwiki.com
Good day,
One of the strongest "as-sure-as-possible" +1 I ever had to share with
you.
Fully on board since I tried this on my own and ran into a few issues when
I tried to go beyond the basics.
Let me know if and how I can contribute to this, for me it's close to a
Christmas present: it would allow to deploy a series of essential /
classic
extensions and be able to both suggest and implement on my own solutions
based on the plethora of plugins based on jQ.
Thank you Jerome for the initiative!
Well, even if jQuery will be bundled in the platform, this doesn't mean
that we'll start using it. It's just there for third party extension
writers, but for the official platform Prototype will continue to be the
official library, at least for the short future.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Guillaume Lerouge <guillaume(a)xwiki.com
wrote:
Hi,
>
> +1 as well, jQuery the de facto standard for many web applications today.
>
> Guillaume
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Andreas Jonsson <aj(a)member.fsf.org>
> wrote:
>
> +1
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> /Andreas
>>
>> 2012-06-16 02:28, Jerome Velociter skrev:
>>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>>>
>>> Now that all the scripts on the Internets are implemented as jQuery
>>> plugins, should we bite the bullet and make it easier for extensions
>>> developers to integrate such scripts ?
>>> Note it would not necessarily mean we use it ourselves in web/XE.
>>>
>>> If we don't do something about it, there is the risk that many
>>>
>> extensions
>
>> bring their own jQuery to the party, which will translate in slower page
>>> loads and more importantly a less enjoyable extension developer
>>> experience.
>>>
>>> An alternative idea would be an "official" jQuery extension (with
a
>>> JSX)
>>> that other extensions can depend upon, should they need jQuery.
>>>
>>> What do you think ?
>>>
>>> Jerome
>>>
>>