W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Shrinking existing libraries as a goal

From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:31:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO8i3ie34sbQo3UNnaQjrFnPGKtG=nwLS+GnpPf0YySSgv2qjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, public-scriptlib@w3.org
I'm sure Yehuda can speak more to the status of scriptlib, but the way I
see it is:

There was a some buzz about scriptlib and the W3C being excited about
developers participating via CGs.
Very few developers joined. 33 scriptlib members compared to 287
jquery-standards[1] members.
There were 0 meaningful posts. 4 total messages (including hello world)
compared to 138 messages for jquery-standards.
Nothing came out of scriptlib, compared to 19 issues[2] in jquery-standards

AFAICT, there are two explanations for this: First, developers at large
don't find CGs very inviting. Second, everyone on scriptlib is highly
experienced and very interested in standards; to the point where they'll
just go to the appropriate non-CG list to discuss things.

With that being said, It's good to see W3C pointing to CGs for input :-)

[1] https://groups.google.com/group/jquery-standards
[2] https://github.com/jquery/standards/issues


On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> FYI, a Script Library Community Group (Cc'ed) was formed some time ago and
> it may have some similar interest(s) <http://www.w3.org/community/**
> scriptlib/ <http://www.w3.org/community/scriptlib/>> (although their mail
> list archive indicates the CG isn't very active).
>
> Perhaps someone in that CG has some comments on Yehuda' email.
>
> -AB
>
> P.S. Yehuda's email archive is <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**
> Public/public-webapps/**2012AprJun/0762.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0762.html>
> >
>
>
> On 5/16/12 10:13 PM, ext Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
>> In principle, I agree with this as a valid goal. It's one among many
>> though, so the devil is in the details of each specific proposal to balance
>> out this goal with others (e.g. keeping the platform consistent). I'd love
>> to see your list of proposals of what it would take to considerably shrink
>> jQuery.
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com <mailto:
>> wycats@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    In the past year or so, I've participated in a number of threads
>>    that were implicitly about adding features to browsers that would
>>    shrink the size of existing libraries.
>>
>>    Inevitably, those discussions end up litigating whether making it
>>    easier for jQuery (or some other library) to do the task is a good
>>    idea in the first place.
>>
>>    While those discussions are extremely useful, I feel it would be
>>    useful for a group to focus on proposals that would shrink the
>>    size of existing libraries with the implicit assumption that it
>>    was a good idea.
>>
>>    From some basic experimentation I've personally done with the
>>    jQuery codebase, I feel that such a group could rather quickly
>>    identify enough areas to make a much smaller version of jQuery
>>    that ran on modern browsers plausible. I also think that having
>>    data to support or refute that assertion would be useful, as it's
>>    often made casually in meta-discussions.
>>
>>    If there is a strong reason that people feel that a focused effort
>>    to identify ways to shrink existing popular libraries in new
>>    browsers would be a bad idea, I'd be very interested to hear it.
>>
>>    Thanks so much for your consideration,
>>
>>    Yehuda Katz
>>    jQuery Foundation
>>    (ph) 718.877.1325 <tel:718.877.1325>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 13:38:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT