An interesting trick would be to detect IE and do this in SMIL2/HTML+TIME (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML%2BTIME), or, in newer WebKits, CSS animation (http://webkit.org/blog/324/css-animation-2/). Opera has SVG animations (http://devfiles.myopera.com/articles/76/SolarSystem2.svg), but I don’t know how that could be worked into manipulating xHTML DOM.

Mozilla browsers – torn between ACID3′s newfound love of SMIL (http://brian.sol1.net/svg/) and implementing CSS animation in FF4?

Add abstraction to abstraction is CODING.

You spek with common language, but you use simple construct… Different level of abstraction, give to human a like understandable language not only for us nerd/geek/codeeater.
Why use -h in linux? ;)

GX has obviously been tested with all the browser that are compatible with jQuery (so, Safari “3″+).

IE6 is supported at all, so it supports all the features provided by GX (thousands of tests have been made). However, as in all others open-source project, if you find any bug you can report it to the GX’s discussion page.

I don’t have a problem with it not supporting Safari 2, but the script shamelessly claims that it does. Citing a home page:
Completely Cross-Browser (IE 6+, Firefox 2+, Opera 9.25+, Safari 2+, Google Chrome)

This makes me unsure whether other browsers (for example IE6) were all tested or if they are “supported” in the same way as Safari 2 is : )

How can Safari 2 be supported when scripts relies on `String.prototype.replace` being able to take function as a replacement argument which Safari <= 2.0.4 has never supported? `replace` is used in `Fns.Camelize`, which is then probably used to normalize properties – “background-color” ==> “backgroundColor”.

How in the world can this work on Safari &lt= 2.0.4?

How in the world can this work on Safari <= 2.0.4?

First of all, standalone frameworks lacks of features: a situation in which you need only animations happens rarely. jQuery offers a solid base (the Selector Engine, the Data Storage, the Namespace structure) that makes works easier and provides better performances.

Secondly (but not less important) I like the major part of jQuery except the animations’ engine. In my opinion, the jQuery engine offers a great control over animations’ creation, but the resulting effects aren’t smooth enough.
Moreover, if you want to build out an animation more complex than a “base” animation, you have to include Plug-Ins, like for color handling, for easing handling and so on.

For this other reason i decided to integrate GX with jQuery, because I really like jQuery and I use it in many applications that need a complex animations’ engine. 1.3kb (gzipped) are enough for this to happen with GX, with all the other main features that a good-quality Web Software requires.

Many users that use jQuery switch to other Javascript Frameworks when they need to create animations. So, I wanted to provide jQuery users (me included) with a new, super-small engine.

For these main reasons I wanted to integrate GX with jQuery.