Re: Reference to RDFJS libraries

On 2014-10-29 12:39, Laurens Rietveld wrote:
> Storing locally or remotely mostly depends on the application. In my JS
> libraries, I bundle the depencies if there is a chance of my library
> being used offline.

I tend to default to that approach as well. I think people tend to agree 
that it really depends on the scenario.

> About hosting the files: I wouldnt use GitHub. It is slower than other
> CDNs, and does not send the correct headers: the expire date is not set
> to the far future, which is the most important reason for a CDN. But
> also the mime type is incorrect, which might cause issues in IE (see
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5502540/should-github-be-used-as-a-cdn-for-javascript-libraries)

Thanks for sharing that. A commenter points use of gh-pages as a 
workaround. This is interesting but adds a todo layer IMO that the 
maintainer needs to be keep it synced. While that may work out, it tries 
to use a service that wasn't meant to be a CDN (in its truest purpose) 
begin with.

I only used GitHub as an obvious example as the source code of the 
common RDFJS libraries reside there.

> Since a week I use cdnjs <https://cdnjs.com/> for hosting my libraries
> online (see e.g. YASQE <https://cdnjs.com/libraries/yasqe>). It should
> be faster
> <http://www.baldnerd.com/make-your-site-faster-cloudflares-cdnjs-vs-google-hosted-libraries-shocking-results/> than
> even the google CDN, and you are able to add your own library.
>
> gr Laurens
>
> ps. About cdnjs: they are now in a transition period where you are not
> able to add your own js files manually. Instead, you should make use of
> their auto-update system, which polls NPM every 15 minutes for new
> versions of the library.

Good to know!

I think the most gain would be achieved if code owners/maintainers take 
on the responsibility (like yourself) to have CDN URLs and simply 
encourage or state them in the documentation.

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i