joepeck02 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 15 13:09:15 PDT 2009
> 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
> Dion: You then also get into the "how do I get my library into the
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.
> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg