On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Joseph Pecoraro
<joepec...@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! ;)
a) Solved by Validation - I can't think of anything much better then
that. =(
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
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the support. My thoughts are beginning to look like this:
- Javascript Frameworks are downloaded all the time on many domains.
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.
- Joe