andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Sun Oct 13 11:19:58 PDT 2013
I see and I agree, this might cause huge different resulting in a feature
Another possibility mentioned in the first post might be to have a unique
<link rel="package" name="my-assets" type="application/zip" href
reusable later on through script tags, as well as images, css, svg,
anything that requires that bundle and not only scripts.
good "packaging" practices will be the same but when there is a link rel
package with a name (title?) the UA might decide to fetch from
that assets.zip instead of the url and ignore such assets.zip file
Not such huge win for JS only but more generic packaging/bundling-together
solution (that I agreed shouldn't have been discussed here since here we
talk about ECMAScript only :D)
Ph well, it was good to dream for few hours :-)
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2013 4:40 AM, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com>
> >> However, Russell's counter-argument that fallback in older browsers to
> loading lots of little files, request by request, from the server directory
> hierarchy, may be too painful, reducing the value as a migration technique.
> > this is what happens today with external CDN scripts and/or AMD like
> solutions regardless ... if these are not bundled all together, isn't it?
> To me at least, the primary difference there is that in that case it is in
> the authors hand whereas native feature support is in the hands of the user
> agent, creating a potentially huge and unmanageable perf delta in the
> short/medium term.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss