- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 00:00:32 +0200
- To: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
- Cc: Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
* Florian Bösch wrote:
>It can be implemented by a JS library, but the three reasons to let the
>browser provide it are Convenience, speed and integration.
>
>Convenience is the first reason, since browsers by far and large already
>have complete bindings to compression algorithms and archive formats,
>letting the browser simply expose the software it already ships makes good
>sense rather than requiring every JS user to supply his own version.
>
>Speed may not matter to much on some platforms, but it matters a great deal
>on underpowered devices such as mobiles.
>
>Integration is where the support for archives goes beyond being an API,
>where URLs (to link.href, script.src, img.src, iframe.src, audio.src,
>video.src, css url(""), etc.) could point into an archive. This cannot be
>done in JS.
If we all agreed that such functionality should be provided by libraries
rather than browser cores, and browser vendors could be expected to make
things convenient, fast, and well-integrated, then using libraries would
be convenient, libraries would be fast, and they would integrate well.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:00:59 UTC