joepeck02 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 15 17:34:52 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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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 /
> 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
Thanks for the support. My thoughts are beginning to look like this:
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg