- From: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:00:04 -0700
2009/6/15 Joseph Pecoraro <joepeck02 at gmail.com> > 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! > > C is a serious concern. SHA-1 collisions are now 2^51 - http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/259.pdf > > > 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/20090615/23e56415/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 18:00:04 UTC