> I agree, but we still have the problem of defining functions with .each(),
> which we do a lot.
And those are changes that I think we should make. Even if our file
size jumps by (say) 1KB gzipped, it would totally be worth it to give
people the ability to completely customize their builds.
I can see how this would be worth it.
> This one concerns me for a few reasons.
> - A major advantage to jQuery is the simplicity of a single file. jQuery's
> usage is still growing and I think a single file has helped that along.
> - Maintaining two jQuerys at once could be a pain.
> - IE6-7 will still be around for a while longer and even if they were not
> supported, we would still need all of the non-qsa in Sizzle, if only to
> maintain the current implementation for filtering.
I agree completely - and to clarify what I was talking about with
point #4. I'm not talking about a separate build for jQuery (I really
don't want a separate build of jQuery) I'm talking about finding a way
to optionally have closure compile out the un-needed IE code paths, if
that is so desired.