[whatwg] Application deployment

>
> Please explain why you consider concatenating JavaScript sources dirty.
>

I don't necessarily think it's dirty, but any choices that game the system
for purely performance reasons seem hackish to me. Concatenating js files
for performance reasons is certainly less offensive than css sprites, but it
still begs the question: is this always the right choice. For example, let's
say I'm using jQuery plus a few plugins. The resources are really separate
entities from third parties. Should I have to concatenate them?

That said, there is clearly not much interest for this proposal here.
I graciously concede :)

-Russ

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
<giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl>wrote:

>  Please explain why you consider concatenating JavaScript sources dirty.
>  You can have a library of all JavaScript definitions relevant to your site
> in one source file and I am not sure what is wrong with it, except that a
> library should consist of books, but that concept was already broken long
> ago.
>
> Chris
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org [mailto:
> whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Russell Leggett
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:25 PM
> *To:* Peter Kasting
> *Cc:* whatwg at whatwg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [whatwg] Application deployment
>
>
>
> It seems to me that many of the additions to the HTML spec are there
> because they provide a standard way to do something we are already doing
> with a hack or more complicated means. CSS sprites are clearly a hack.
> Concatenating js files are clearly a hack. Serving from
> multiple sub-domains to beat the connection limit is also a workaround. My
> proposal is intended to approach the deployment issue directly, because I
> think it is a limitation in the html spec itself and therefore, I think the
> html spec should provide its own solution. My proposal may not be the best
> way, but assuming the issue will be dealt with eventually by some other
> party through some other means does not seem right either.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080731/a4568851/attachment.htm>

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 10:32:33 UTC