3 ms·

jqMobi and jQuery Mobile are two very different things. Despite "jq" in the name, jqMobi is not jQuery (or jQuery Mobile) compatible. It has a similar syntax an

jqMobi and jQuery Mobile are two very different things. Despite "jq" in the name, jqMobi is not jQuery (or jQuery Mobile) compatible. It has a similar syntax and implements a subset of features, but even the APIs with the same names are not always fully compatible. My main question would be whether there is a long-term commitment to jqMobi by Intel. For something with Intel's name on it, the project pages have an embarrassing number of spelling and grammar errors. [1] I don't see a lot of contributors to the repo [2] and the unit tests haven't been updated in 3 months despite quite a bit of recent activity in the repo. [1] http://app-framework-software.intel.com/ [2] https://github.com/01org/appframework [Edit: I should say I'm on the jQuery team]

imaffett 14y ago
Hi dmethvin, I'm the one responsible for all your complaints...sadly my dad is an edito, so I always feel bad with the spelling/grammar errors ;). You are correct in not every function works the same way (just as the case with Zepto.js). We've added new functionality and have even seen changes from our implementation make it's way into jQuery 2.0 (how props/attr work but not saying we are responsible) For everyone else, Intel is committed to the project (that's about all I can say now). Keep a look out and you won't be disappointed! Ian
- dmethvin 14y ago
  Hi Ian, I think you're doing an amazing job, but basically by yourself if the GitHub graphs are any indication [1]. It helps to have a group of people with differing experiences and perspectives when designing an API, and of course more people to do the heavy lifting as well. If docs aren't your thing, then there should be someone to review and write the docs. Since jqMobi has diverged from jQuery, that makes docs even more important because the name implies to people that it works like jQuery. As far as the attr/prop thing goes, we changed it a couple of years ago in jQuery 1.6 and deprecated the old behavior, but there is still a lot of code out there that does the wrong thing. That's why 1.9 was such a code breaker for a lot of people. [1] https://github.com/01org/appframework/contributors
  - imaffett 14y ago
    Hi Dave, Would be nice to have some offline conversations - can you drop me a line? You can get my email from my github pages site. thanks, Ian

imaffett 14y ago

Hi dmethvin, I'm the one responsible for all your complaints...sadly my dad is an edito, so I always feel bad with the spelling/grammar errors ;). You are correct in not every function works the same way (just as the case with Zepto.js). We've added new functionality and have even seen changes from our implementation make it's way into jQuery 2.0 (how props/attr work but not saying we are responsible) For everyone else, Intel is committed to the project (that's about all I can say now). Keep a look out and you won't be disappointed! Ian

dmethvin 14y ago
Hi Ian, I think you're doing an amazing job, but basically by yourself if the GitHub graphs are any indication [1]. It helps to have a group of people with differing experiences and perspectives when designing an API, and of course more people to do the heavy lifting as well. If docs aren't your thing, then there should be someone to review and write the docs. Since jqMobi has diverged from jQuery, that makes docs even more important because the name implies to people that it works like jQuery. As far as the attr/prop thing goes, we changed it a couple of years ago in jQuery 1.6 and deprecated the old behavior, but there is still a lot of code out there that does the wrong thing. That's why 1.9 was such a code breaker for a lot of people. [1] https://github.com/01org/appframework/contributors
- imaffett 14y ago
  Hi Dave, Would be nice to have some offline conversations - can you drop me a line? You can get my email from my github pages site. thanks, Ian