dion at almaer.com
Mon Jun 15 16:41:43 PDT 2009
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! ;)
> 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.
> 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.
> - Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg