4 ms·

Makes me wonder if it would make sense to have it built-in in browsers?

• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• podperson 14y ago
  It is built in to many browsers. <node>.querySelector(...) and <node>.querySelectorAll(...) If all you're using jQuery for is grabbing nodes from the DOM and attaching event listeners AND you don't care about old versions of IE then... http://caniuse.com/queryselector http://caniuse.com/queryselector In a nut: querySelector[All] requires IE8, addEventListener requires IE9.
  • johnbender 14y ago
    Just to be clear, jQuery's selector syntax supports many, many things that querySelector(All) does not. http://api.jquery.com/category/selectors/jquery-selector-extensions/ http://api.jquery.com/category/selectors/jquery-selector-ext...
    • HoLyVieR 14y ago
      It's not many things, if you look carefully you will realize most of what is listed can be rewritten with a CSS selector. For example ":button" is the same has "button, input[type='button']". They are mostly just shorthand and that's not extra feature.
• politician 14y ago
  If Sizzle is present in over half of all websites, it's already a standard and one would expect either Mozilla or Google to add native support for it; it seems like low-hanging fruit.
  • cleverjake 14y ago
    thats just silly talk. of course they would want that stuff natively. that is why they created the querySelectorAll method. If Moz/Goog gets it native in browser, that is less bytes that need to be transfered over the wire, and therefore faster websites.
• simonbrown 14y ago
  That would prevent you from using the latest version in older browsers. Perhaps if it was implemented as a resource="jquery-1.8.0" attribute on the script tag, allowing browsers with a copy to load that instead of hitting the server.
• emehrkay 14y ago
  No thanks. The jQuery single object design pattern is one that I do not like