Wedge

Yeah, we knew about this but given that there were problems integrating 1.6 (not to mention bloat), that I think there needs to be something pretty special to encourage an upgrade.

Well, as the primary front-end guy here, I'll have to say that 1.7 is a step in the right direction, with things such as simplifying event delegation and shortening function names (on/off).
There are still a few quirks that bother me though:

- it still has the 'zoom' bug in Opera 12. I don't understand why they removed a function on the basis that it generated errors in Chrome's console log, but they're not fixing this one which does the same in Opera -- when it's a relatively easy fix. (It's even VERY easy if you use browser sniffing, meh... The only reason for that zoom test is to... test for IE.)

- it's larger than 1.5.2, obviously. Not by a wide margin... About 10%. But it's still 10%. Actually, I could have stayed with v1.4.4 which was smaller than 1.5.2 but wanted to have the 'perfect' Ajax code which they advertised. I'm not even sure this changes anything actually... I'd love for jQuery to re-release the 1.4 branch with UglifyJS compression. I'm sure it would be of benefit... (Or, yeah, I could recompress it manually, but the CDN version would stay as it is.)

- a good way to reduce size would be to release versions of jQuery where all deprecated functions are just *removed*... There is no reason not to do that. If you're the author of the JavaScript code that relies on jQuery, and you choose to use the 'light' version, you're bound to know not to use some functions like .bind() or .delegate().

- they're fixing HTML5 tag use in .html() but it still requires HTML5Shiv. I'm not exactly sure which is best here... They could go ahead and integrate HTML5Shiv, couldn't they? But then it would mean IE fixes waste bandwidth for other browsers. And then... And then you start wondering, how about they release modular jQuery versions targeted to a specific browser and version, and they let us choose the target...? So what, "it's not a good thing to sniff browser versions"? Who are we kidding here? The only browser that needs special treatment, 99% of the time, is IE... Just do a test for IE and call a custom jQuery for it!

- well, it's a first iteration. Remember how the release of 1.6 went..? It was a mess. Let's wait...

Other than that... Having jQuery 1.6 in Wedge was a no-no, but v1.7 is a bit better in that respect. If only they could take bandwidth into account...

It looked to me as though it could actually complicate matters and make the code harder to follow later, and it seems to me that it might encourage some ambiguity over elements but as ever, we'll wait and see.Being the number 2 or number 3 browser, depending on who you listen to, gives you more clout than being number 4 or number 5 depending on who you listen to.Yes there is, one very, very good reason. A number of the CDN links out there for Google refer to "the current stable version". By deprecating methods a version ahead of removing them, it gives people time to fix their code now that the replacements are available.Not really. A lot of projects that use jQuery don't expressly use HTML5 elements and so don't really need the shiv, and it means it can be included or not included depending on need, rather than bloating it for everyone.It's not, but IE is incredibly brain-dead at times, and as such we have to account for it, and usually the fastest way to do that is to sniff.This is the thing. 1.7 might have some of the same issues as 1.6, bandwidth aside.

They finally heard you!

Yeah :)

good! ;)