JQuery 2.0 Released

http://blog.jquery.com/2013/04/18/jquery-2-0-released/

by Encosia • 13 years ago

472 216 13 years ago

blog.jquery.com

The "How 2.0 Changed" section only lists dropping support for IE 6/7/8 and reduced file size (from dropping the IE support?). Are there any other note worthy/major changes or just minor bug fixes and the like?

apendleton4• 13 years ago

No, the idea has pretty much always been that jQuery 1.9 and 2.0 would be feature-comparable, just with different sizes and supported browsers. See http://blog.jquery.com/2012/06/28/jquery-core-version-1-9-an...

as_if• 13 years ago

They hate IE SO much, they even made the drop a new major release.

This is what I call commitment.

gesman• 13 years ago

No more support for IE 6/7/8. Yay!

marcosdumay• 13 years ago

Gone, with half of the compressed file size.

Lots of people will serve the two versions.

apendleton4• 13 years ago

The addition of the ability to just use querySelectorAll as the selector engine and not ship Sizzle is a pretty big deal, and not something I remember being included in earlier discussions about jQuery 2. qSA still includes a pretty broad set of selectors, and the ability to get the build down to 10k minified and gzipped puts it squarely in Zepto's territory, size-wise, eliminating the need for that particular wheel reinvention.

dmethvin8• 13 years ago

If you use really simple class and id selectors, the qSA-based selector engine may be fine. However, I think a lot of devs would be surprised about how much Sizzle is doing for them.

apendleton4• 13 years ago

qSA does a lot more than class and id selectors; those have been trivial since long before qSA came along. You can also do selection on element attributes, parent-child selections (include strict child selection with ">"), and a few other higher-order selector combinations.

Still, I don't mean to slight Sizzle, and certainly won't stop using it. It's just nice to see jQuery compete with Zepto, since apparently there's a demand for a build that small, and jQuery is better-tested and less brittle.

KaoruAoiShiho• 13 years ago

Is there a list of features of what sizzle does over qSA

dmethvin8• 13 years ago

Posted elsewhere, but https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/selector-na...

igravious3• 13 years ago

Serious question. Please hit me with a clue stick.

Regarding 1.9, how can "old-IE compatibility often causes problems of its own" and "simplest way to support older browsers is to use jQuery 1.x on your site, since it works for all browsers." both be true at one and the same time?

epmatsw3• 13 years ago

Keeping old-IE compatibility prevents some optimizations and makes the code have to do extra checks, but using one file that supports it is simpler than using two files?

igravious3• 13 years ago

Ok, so the problems it causes are pain points for the jQuery devs and not for website devs? Also, the underlying code is more complex and lacks optimizations? Until old drops off the radar completely we'll have to use 1.9 solely or do a conditional check and serve the suitable version - serving 1.9 seems simpler ^^, call me lazy, many have,

themgt• 13 years ago

This is one of the biggest projects on the web leading the way in throwing shitty old IE under the bus to help push the modern web forward.

They're going to keep big-fixing 1.X so people stuck with IE6/7/8 can keep supporting it, but moving forward with 2.x for modern browsers makes their lives easier in the long run, and provides yet another coffin nail in Microsoft's attempt decade-old attempt to break the web.

oneeyedpigeon5• 13 years ago

Third parties have been trying to throw shitty old IE under the bus for a long, long time and haven't had much success in doing so. I fear jQuery 2.0 will see very low take-up on mainstream sites, and the resulting fork will be tricky to manage.

stef25• 13 years ago

They're not so much throwing IE under the bus as throwing developers under the bus that have fortune-500 clients that can only use IE. Some nerd (me) whining about their browser choice is really not going to make their IT director change policies.

Granted, I can and will keep using 1.9

democracy12• 13 years ago

" throwing shitty old IE under the bus to help push the modern web forward."

probably instead throwing the vendors that don't want to support old IE...

dmethvin8• 13 years ago

There's a difference between working as a web page in all browsers and working in all HTML-rendering environments such as the ones listed in the bullet points in the blog. For example, Windows 8 apps or Chrome add-ons have additional security restrictions on .innerHTML.

AshleysBrain• 13 years ago

old-IE compatibility causes problems with the other non-browser platforms they list, e.g. Windows 8 apps, Firefox OS apps, Chrome OS apps, PhoneGap apps, BB10 apps, node.js, etc. For example Win8 apps using jQuery used to log an error on startup every time, probably because of some oldIE compatibility check which didn't work in the not-quite-a-browser environment.

felixthehat• 13 years ago

I wish Microsoft would shoehorn at least IE9 into XP, maybe like Chrome Frame.

It's crazy how many people are still stuck with XP/IE8 which is a massive web dev headache.

yuhong4• 13 years ago

My favorite is how it fails to support decade old features like DOM Level 2 and XHTML.

angersock7• 13 years ago

but nobody gives a shit about xhtml

ancarda• 13 years ago

I'm annoyed XP doesn't have IE 9 or DirectX 10+, but I guess that's Microsoft's way of getting people to upgrade to newer versions of Windows.

Based on current stats, I'd say IE 8 hasn't got long till you can ignore it but it really depends on how much market share you care about. Do people STILL target IE 6? IE 8 is on ~10%[1] and at the current rate it's dropping at should be at 5% by October - Just in time for IE 11?

As for blaming XP, I'm not sure you can completely. IE 8 is the default browser of Windows 7 and XP has more than double the market share of IE 6/7/8 combined. Most IE users seem to be schools and companies that haven't upgraded. Although IE 6 will definitely be gone by April 2014, we could very well be stuck with IE 8 for a very long time.

For the record, IE 6 and 7 should be ignored completely. Combined they have a market share of less than 1%.

For a rule of thumb, I commonly drop support once a browser crosses 5%. Might seem high but usually once it's at that level, it's only going to keep falling.

Something to look forward to, my estimates[2] put Firefox 3.6, Safari 5/5.1 and IE 6/7/9 to all be gone by the start of 2014. Of course, linear estimations should always be taken with a grain of salt.

[1] http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combine...

[2] http://cl.ly/image/2d1G3Y1Q2m3k

yuhong4• 13 years ago

AFAIK DX10+, D2D, DWrite etc was designed for the new driver model introduced with Vista and if XP display drivers are used they either don't work or fallback to software rendering. And yes IE9+ depends on D20/DWrite for its rendering, particularly for canvas etc.

tghw• 13 years ago

Speaking of old software, Windows XP is nearly a dozen years old.

JoeCortopassi• 13 years ago

I think what a lot of people are upset about here, is jQuery entered the web development scene as "the library that solved cross-browser compatibility issues". Now while IE 6 is an obvious one to drop, IE 7 is a little tougher, and IE 8 is down right impossible to drop at this time. I understand that jQuery wants to promote a modern framework, but people didn't adopt it for it's fancy features. They adopted it because those fancy features worked the same in every major browser .

The stop gap solution of 1.9 as being parallel to 2.0 but with compatibility, is understandable, but will probably promote distrust in developers who just need a stable cross-platform solution. I think the immediate concern with 1.9, is how long it will continue in parallel with 2.x before being dropped

spicyj• 13 years ago

I don't think that's true. There were a handful of competing libraries (Prototype.js, Mootools, etc) and jQuery won out because people seemed to prefer its API.

chollida1• 13 years ago

Only one data point here, but we originally chose jquery for browser compatibility support and I know we're not alone:)

The rest of jquery was just gravy.

speg• 13 years ago

I can only speak for myself, but IMO jQuery won because of their docs. I seem to remember having a hell of a time trying to get MooTools to work in the summer of '06, and finding docs to be of no help.

dmethvin8• 13 years ago

Sorry if I seem cranky, but did you READ the blog post? jQuery 1.9 supports those browsers and the jQuery team still supports it. Do you have a problem with us supporting a second version that can be smaller, faster, and work in places other than obsolete browsers?

philh2• 13 years ago

It looks to me like he's worried (or saying that other people are/might be worried) about how long 1.9 will continue to be supported for.

oneeyedpigeon5• 13 years ago

Did you consider an alternative to major version bumping, e.g. a slightly different name for this fork, such as jQuery-slim ... or a much better name? :-) I think the problem is that 2.0 just implies 'better' to such an extent that a lot of people will be concerned about 1.9's imminent sunsetting.

tambourine_man• 13 years ago

I do.

The final 2.0.0 file is 12 percent smaller than the 1.9.1 file, thanks to the elimination of patches that were only needed for IE 6, 7, and 8.

Dropping IE 6, 7 and 8 support for a 12% smaller file size while effectively forking your code base for the foreseeable future is a lousy decision. Increase complexity tremendously for what, 3-4 KB when gzipped?

jacob019• 13 years ago

I think it's great. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade, jQuery 1.9 is stable and you can use it forever even with new browsers. So what if it's not supported after some unknown date in the future. It's solid and will keep on working. No one is forcing developers to switch, but in my case I don't want my users using older versions of IE. We develop apps for in-house use, and breaking old insecure browsers is a good thing, it promotes user upgrades. A smaller jQuery is great, as it will reduce load times a bit. I couldn't be happier with the decision.

jeresig• 13 years ago

I don't work on jQuery any more but I (and I know many others on the jQuery team) all build web sites as part of their day jobs (and, thus, need to continuing supporting IE 8). It's going to be a very long time before support for the 1.x branch is dropped. But hopefully soon, death of IE 8 willing.

angersock7• 13 years ago

Is there any list of companies that currently require old versions of IE? I know a lot of hospitals do, and people handwave banks and whatnot.

If there was a big list of "These people still use old versions of IE", then we could:

  A. Properly shame/advertise for attack/avoid getting work from these people.

  B. Expose a dedicated market audience for compatibility-minded dev shops

Either of these would seem to be a Good Thing (tm), and would help remove a lot of the FUD in the ecosystem.

ricardobeat2• 13 years ago

IE7 is almost dead, falling below 1% almost everywhere, and IE8 is dying a quick death. Google dropped support for IE < 9 on all it's webapps in November 2012.

wiremine• 13 years ago

If the only issue is IE 6, 7 and 8 marketshare, then the question becomes: how long will IE8 have a sizable portion of the market. Here's a graph of the browser market over the last 3 years (typical disclaimer about lies, damn lies and statistics, and measure your own traffic, etc.)

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combine...

Assuming the above graph is relatively close to the truth, IE8 is around 10% of the worldwide marketshare.

So, the question is: when does a library like jQuery drop support? 10% marketshare, 5%, 2%, 1%? At what point is the overhead outweigh the benefits?

Obviously there are some developers who need to support IE7 (for example), regardless of the overall market. I personally don't think that should be the approach for tools like jQuery: time is valuable, and they should target the largest possible market possible.

oneeyedpigeon5• 13 years ago

I cannot believe IE8 is now considered 'old'. It is the second most used browser+version on our site, and has about 80% as much usage as the leader, IE9. Can't see IE8 support being droppable for many years yet.

ahoge• 13 years ago

Even IE9 is pretty old. It's over 2 years old by now. IE8 is over 4 years old.

IE11 will be released soon. How many versions of IE do you intend to support?

igravious3• 13 years ago

As many versions as used by the audience that they serve I suppose; how is the choice up to him?

silverbax884• 13 years ago

We have clients who still use IE 6. BIG clients - banks too big for me to name publicly. Millions of dollars in revenue and dozens of jobs' worth.

Dropping them isn't an option.

oneeyedpigeon5• 13 years ago

How much money can my business afford to lose on a point of principle that no-one else in the company would ascribe any value to whatsoever? Not much. The decision obviously takes into account time spent catering for older browsers, but jQuery eases the problem - at the moment. As a very rough guide, it seems sensible to cater for any browser version representing at least 1% of traffic; IE8 currently represents over 20% for us, so it's nowhere near getting dropped, unfortunately.

robocat2• 13 years ago

Our users:

IE8: 40%

IE9: 25%

Chrome: 15%

Firefox: 10%

iOS: 5%

Others: 5%

The majority of our clients are businesses with 50 to 500 employees in Australasia.

pramodliv1• 13 years ago

Have you tried educating your users about other browsers? Has it worked?

colmvp2• 13 years ago

I cannot believe IE8 is now considered 'new'. It is the least used browser+version on our ecommerce site. Can't see IE8 support being a priority for many years.

FWIW, I'm not joking.

leeoniya• 13 years ago

it would be nice to see a 2.0 vs 1.9 bench on FF/Chrome/IE9+, much more interested in that than a non-noticeable 11k size reduction for the end user (maybe only slightly noticeable on very slow mobile).

monkeynotes2• 13 years ago

Yeah, I was also scratching my head as to the 'performance' gains. Even if jQuery 2.0 has computational benchmark gains they also are likely insignificant in proper context.

byroot• 13 years ago

I found this one: http://jsperf.com/jquery-1-7-2-vs-jquery-1-8/29

2.0 is slightly faster on every measures.

DivisibleByZero• 13 years ago

I was just debating the merits of going with one of the lightweight jquery substitutions for a phonegap app. This couldn't come at a better time.

Dropping the cruft and supporting 1.9 is such a wonderful way to go. Congratulations on a great release jquery team.

dave1010uk• 13 years ago

Now we can say "but even the latest version jQuery doesn't support IE 8!" (even though the supported 1.9 branch still does).

DigitalSea3• 13 years ago

This is a welcome change. Considering the market share of IE 6, 7 and 8 is pretty minuscule and Google dropping support for IE8 back in November 2012 should be cause enough to drop it from jQuery too. It's great to hear they'll be supporting the older 1.9 branch for users who need to support older versions of IE as not everyone has the luxury of being able to ditch older versions of IE like that. There's no cause for concern here, the jQuery team covered their bases well and lets face it, there aren't many open source projects out there that drop support for older versions of something like a browser and then commit to continue to support an older branch for a lengthy amount of time.

hobbes78• 13 years ago

Is 31.37% pretty minuscule? I don't think so...

Source: http://www.netmarketshare.com/

colmvp2• 13 years ago

It is if your customer base are comprised of very few IE users.

nbouscal12• 13 years ago

As best I can see on the site you linked, IE8 is 23.23%. That also disagrees significantly with this source: http://caniuse.com/usage_table.php where IE8 is 8.89%

DigitalSea3• 13 years ago

You combined all aforementioned versions of IE together to yield that result: http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri... — even combined the market share is still in my opinion minuscule. The only browser with a substantial market share is IE 8 which according to the site has a market share of 23%, it's not even worth adding in those other percentages on-top to try and make it seem as though a lot of people still use those browsers.

31% is not justification enough to maintain legacy code in a library that has become a little bloated over the years because of the backwards compatibility with older browsers. If you want to support that 31%, use the 1.9 branch it's better than the alternative being no support whatsoever.

Edit: Why all of the down-votes, is my response offensive?

ricardobeat2• 13 years ago

Statcounter[1] puts IE8 at ~10%, 12% for the US[2]. In some markets it's even lower[3]. This matches what I see from non-tech client websites. For anything related to software, IE as a whole is close to zero.

StatCounter tracks 3 million websites vs 40k for NetMarketShare.

[1] http://gs.statcounter.com/

[2] http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combine...

[3] http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combine...

b3tta• 13 years ago

10.29% worldwide according to: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-201203...

Well one of the websites I'm working on is a fairly big one in germany and only about 4% of all visitors are using IE8 or below. Guess what! We now only support IE9+.

democracy12• 13 years ago

At my work (big data analytics for banks) we still have major customers using IE 6. We had to support 5.5 a few years back!

If you think about it, there is no real reason not to support old browsers, unless you are in online gaming, of course.

sturmeh• 13 years ago

Until Windows XP is banished from corporate machines worldwide, I don't think we can drop IE8 support. (You can't install 9/10 on Windows XP.)

I'm glad they decided to continue support for 1.x for now.

da_n• 13 years ago

Well done jQuery team, nice work. Wether I can use it production before April 8, 2014 is going to be debatable. I dearly would love to delete the XP VM running IE8 however.

davis_m• 13 years ago

I don't understand why the smaller file size is such a big deal. The file is going to be cached, and with the use of CDNs, is more than likely already cached before the client ever visits my website.

So if the Query team is still going to support these browsers in 1.9, why even make the 2.0 version?

Perceptes• 13 years ago

File size is not only a concern in terms of download time. There's also parse time, and the amount of extra memory used to consider.

ethermal2• 13 years ago

it isn't, it's all political.

rurounijones• 13 years ago

I am not too troubled by the drop of support of IE 6/7/8.

As long as they continue to support IE8 in 1.9 until Windows XP EOL next year I don't really see a problem.

Asking jQuery to support those browsers longer than Microsoft itself is willing do seems a bit harsh.

reustle• 13 years ago

> Asking jQuery to support those browsers longer than Microsoft itself is willing do seems a bit harsh.

While I agree with jQuery's decision here, this isn't really fair right? Windows XP and most old stand-alone software they have installed will continue to work after MS drops support.

When we're talking about the web, a reasonable effort should be made to support those legacy users. Of course, you can only do so much, but according to the general consensus in these comments, that's around 10% of visitors. Whether or not dropping them is worth saving the 12% in code size, is a different question.

verisimilitude• 13 years ago

Am I the only one who can not use Closure Compiler with jquery 2.0.0? ( http://closure-compiler.appspot.com/ )

Skalman2• 13 years ago

Yeah, it gives me 29 errors. You might as well use UglifyJS, the same compressor that jQuery uses. https://github.com/mishoo/UglifyJS2/

You can try it out on http://skalman.github.io/UglifyJS-online/. It's just a light-weight wrapper.

Zangrief• 13 years ago

The point of separation is simpler jQuery development and reduced file-size for the >= 2.x versions. You will serve two files. You serve 1.9.x to IE 6/7/8 users, and 2.x to everyone else. You save bandwidth. You save money.

Features will be the same. It's OSS folks. It's not like it's ran by a closed-source team at Google who may suddenly pull the plug if it deems the project unpopular. My guess is folks who work in enterprise (where older IE still plagues) will be the big maintainers of 1.9.x.

laurent123456• 13 years ago

> If you want, you can serve 2.0 to newer browsers and 1.9 to older ones using our conditional comment trick

I'm really surprised they would suggest doing this. The two APIs are quite different since many functions from the 1.x branch have been removed in the 2.x or sometime behave differently (for instance `$("some <strong>bold</strong> text")` will be parsed as HTML in 1.x but considered a CSS selector in 2.x).

Basically, I really wonder what could be the benefit of using this kind of conditional comment trick.

Skalman2• 13 years ago

It'll be parsed as HTML in 1.8, but it's a CSS selector in 1.9.

curiousdannii• 13 years ago

If you can find a case where 1.9 and 2.0 have different APIs, file it as a bug!

darkandbrooding3• 13 years ago

I've read through the 100+ comments that preceded me, and I must be missing something stupidly obvious. Thanks in advance to anyone who can enlighten me.

Can't you just host your own copy of JQuery? If your web app needs version x.y.whatever, is there some reason why you can't just host your own copy of the library on the same servers the provide the rest of your web content?

I understand the convenience of using some CDN's copy of JQuery, but I'm unsure why it's anything other than a convenience. Maybe it's about money: "It'll cost us an extra $X per month in bandwidth fees to host our own version of JQuery." Maybe it's about user experience: "By hosting JQuery on our own site we add 100ms to page load times."

To the people who seem most unhappy about the version bump, can you describe how hosting your own version of JQuery would complicate your lives? Just so there is no ambiguity, I'm asking from a point of ignorance, not snark. I would genuinely like to read the answers.

crazygringo2• 13 years ago

There is zero problem with hosting your own copy. Lots of people do.

The main advantage to using a CDN is that a single copy can be cached across multiple websites, meaning that the first time someone visits your site, there's a good chance your version of jQuery already sits on their computer. Plus, the Google CDN will often serve content faster than your own site. And, since jQuery is now so "integral" to websites, it almost seems silly to have to maintain a copy of it yourself.

But the main downside to using a CDN is that, CDN's have gone down before, and that means your site will stop working. Obviously, it doesn't happen often, but it happened once to a widely used site of a friend of mine, and he swore, never again will he reference jQuery on a CDN. I personally prefer to host myself too. (But not out of bandwidth savings, that just winds up being trivial.)

Dave9k• 13 years ago

You can use a CDN and fallback to local if it goes down.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5257923/how-to-load-local...

darkandbrooding3• 13 years ago

Y'know, I hadn't even considered that your browser might already have a cached copy of JQuery because of a previous visit to some other site. Like the friend you mentioned, the idea of third-party hosting for a critical piece of infrastructure is a non-starter for me. If my site depends on X, I prefer (the illusion of) control over X.

lessnonymous• 13 years ago

It's not about being able to access 1.x in the long term from a CDN. The problem is whether it will still be supported. If there are bugs in 1.x, will they be fixed? Will 1.x support Chrome v40 and IE 15?

_sh• 13 years ago

Backporting bugfixes has a cost. Requiring 1.x to support IE15 pushes that cost onto the jQuery developers instead of where it rightfully belongs: migrating your app to a recent version.

darkandbrooding3• 13 years ago

Thanks for the clarification. Although the JQuery team didn't announce any end date for support of 1.x, I appreciate the ticking clock implicit in the major version bump.

I suspect that a comment made by user Zangrief is right on the money - enterprise users will increasingly take over maintenance of the 1.x branch out of necessity.

colemorrison• 13 years ago

So I find that the majority of people are missing a very LARGE improvement that I value far beyond any of the stated benefits by the jQuery team:

-One of the most popular libraries is dropping support for IE 6,7, and 8. Thus, yet another cornerstone of the web is going to push users forward and increase the chance that those miserable browsers will disappear.

The most disturbing thing I find is that there are developers that are DEFENDING existence for those older browsers. Are you masochists? Do you enjoy the headaches of fucking around with those??

"Oh but so many clients are still using them, and it writes off potential users!"

How can we ever expect for them to upgrade their damn browser unless the builders the web (developers, not just browsers) quit allowing them to rot in complacency????

Of course, there is a thing as going "too leading edge" and expecting "too much" from the user...but when the cornerstones (libs, browsers, etc) start pushing them forward - then we should embrace this change. Coding for the multi-browser/platform/device/version web is hard enough.

theycallmemorty• 13 years ago

The main problem I see is that IE9 does not work on windows XP. How long will we continue to see Windows XP machines in the wild?

acdha5• 13 years ago

Microsoft will not be doing it past 2014. I wouldn't care more about their OS than they do, particularly given the extreme security risks.

democracy12• 13 years ago

Not defending, but if you cannot degrade your functionality to make it work in old IE then you doing something wrong. Please, give me a use-case that is not too niche but absolutely requires the latest generation of browsers.

ethermal2• 13 years ago

I don't get this line of thinking. Do you know there are programs written on system/36 machines from the early eighties still in production today on ibm iSeries machines? And even older software/systems in place that are older then that. Business requirements don't change hourly/weekly/monthly. If the business requirement that existed at that point in time, that the software solution put in place at that time met those requirements why would a business be compelled to change if those requirements have not changed and the solution met those needs? I've been a developer a really long time, 25+ years professionally. Businesses demand stability, this absolutely absurd idea that software that is only a few years old must be thrown out and some new flashy unproven shit put in its place is mind boggling. The last job I put a bid on, one of the requirements was that the software in initial form be supported for a minimum of 10 years. And in my experience that is a short life span.

silasb• 13 years ago

Anyone know if the jQuery 2.0 fixes/enhancements will also be applied to the 1.x branch, particular the 1.9 series. Based on what I've read they are running in parallel with the IE stuff removed. I can't seem to find anything that mentions that 1.x stuff has been updated and released.

jrochkind1• 13 years ago

One thing that confuses me:

If the JQuery team is committed to keep supporting 1.9/1.x, entirely API-compatible with 2.0 -- what is the benefit to JQuery of the 1.x/2.x fork? You get a cleaner easier to maintain codebase in 2.x -- but you've got to keep maintaining 1.x anyway. If there was a feature you didn't want to add to 1.x because it was too hard -- you still can't add it to 2.x and not 1.x, because you committed to supporting 1.x as API-compatible, no?

Is the idea that 2.x will provide better performance on capable browsers than 1.x? So, yeah, the development burden is no less, but the results are better.

I guess I understand why people are doubting whether they will really follow through -- because if they do follow through, it makes it somewhat unclear what the benefit of the 2.x refactor was in the first place.

EGreg2• 13 years ago

It would be nice if jQuery made builds for every browser, so savvier developers who can write server-side code can actually spit out only the relevant jQuery to the relevant browser. I mean, it's not like caching files at the ISP level is the limiting factor here, so each browser can cache its own file.

drorweiss• 13 years ago

Will jquery still work with jsdom on node.js? the 2.0 or 1.9 jquery?

JQuery 2.0 Released

Related Stories