<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite">On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Joseph Pecoraro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joepeck02@gmail.com">joepeck02@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "> <div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote type="cite">Dion: The problem here is that isn't backwards compatible and thus no-one will really be able to use it. </blockquote><br><div>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?</div> <div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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! ;)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>a) Solved by Validation - I can't think of anything much better then that. =(</div><div>b) Canonical Listing - This shouldn't be too difficult to distribute from a central source or some convention.</div><div>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!</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> Dion: You then also get into the "how do I get my library into the browser?"</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div> <div><font color="#144FAE"><br></font></div><div><font color="#144FAE"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">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).</span></font></div> <div><br></div><div><font color="#144FAE"><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">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. </span></font></div> </div><div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> 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.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><br></div><div>I was afraid of this. This is a completely valid point. I guess it sounds like too much work for too little gain?</div><div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Thanks for the support. My thoughts are beginning to look like this:</div><div>- Javascript Frameworks are downloaded all the time on many domains. This is a special case.</div><div>- 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.</div><div>- 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.</div><div><br></div><div>- Joe</div></body></html>