[whatwg] Thoughts on recent WhatWG blog post

Diogo Resende dresende at thinkdigital.pt
Mon Feb 7 15:10:35 PST 2011

 On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:03:55 -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Adam van den Hoven
> <adam at littlefyr.com> wrote:
>> Further, in CommonJS, the library has to export an object in order 
>> to make
>> it available. If we could define things in such a way that the 
>> browser
>> compiled the library independent of the page that loads it, the 
>> browser
>> could cache the *compiled* code and provide that to the browser 
>> page. It
>> would also be necessary to either enforce that these cached 
>> libraries be
>> immutable or that a copy of the compiled code be made available. I 
>> couldn't
>> implement this so I'm not sure how feasible this is but I suspect 
>> that
>> requiring immutability would be the easier to implement.
> What problem does this solve?  How is it better than inserting a
> <script> element, when the returned resource has suitable caching
> headers?

 I think Adam's opinion is a bit influenced by CommonJS. Although I like 
 the require() thingy, I think this feature would be much more 
 appreciated for author app objects and extensions (similar to RequireJS) 
 than HTML specific things like crypto et al.

More information about the whatwg mailing list