- From: Joseph Pecoraro <joepeck02@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:34:52 -0400
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Joseph Pecoraro > <joepeck02 at gmail.com> wrote: >> Dion: The problem here is that isn't backwards compatible and thus >> no-one will really be able to use it. > > I thought the original idea was backwards compatible. Maybe not the > URN Schemes. If the original idea is not, could you point out the > issues? > > The URN schemes isn't compatible. The SHA hash idea is do-able, but > as Oliver pointed out is impractical: a) devs will forget to update > it, b) looks ugly, c) fun things would happen with a SHA collision! ;) a) Solved by Validation - I can't think of anything much better then that. =( b) Canonical Listing - This shouldn't be too difficult to distribute from a central source or some convention. c) Hehe, I think I detect a hint of sarcasm. If there is a SHA1 collision then you'd probably make a lot of money! > Dion: You then also get into the "how do I get my library into the > browser?" > > Enough widespread usage of a library is a clear indicator for > adoption into a browser bundle. Dynamically growing repositories > could optimize per computer for the particular user's browsing > habits (assuming developers would mark their scripts with the > identifiers). > > You can have the same problem with what libraries will Google > include in its CDN. Although it may be easier for Google to host > just about any library if it already has a CDN setup. > > This was a real problem for us. How much is "enough" ? We started to > get inundated with requests for people to put libraries up there. Lets the browsers decide. And I can't make any reasonable suggestions without getting real world data, something I haven't tried to do yet. But yes, this is a good point, something that is extremely flexible / variable. > Dion: After mulling this over with the Google CDN work, I think > that using HTTP and the browser mechanisms that we have now gives us > a lot without any of these issues. > > I was afraid of this. This is a completely valid point. I guess it > sounds like too much work for too little gain? > > I don't want to stop you from working on these ideas. The core > problem that we tend to download the same crap all the time is real, > and I look forward to seeing people come up with interesting > solutions. Thanks for the support. My thoughts are beginning to look like this: - Javascript Frameworks are downloaded all the time on many domains. This is a special case. - Those who benefit the most are the ones that can't space the extra request or large caches. This makes me think mobile browsers would get the biggest benefit. - I think the iPhone had some special html syntax for its mobile webpages, maybe they can sneak this in if it proves useful to them. - Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090615/8e4b41fa/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 17:34:52 UTC