Generic Bundling

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at
Sun Oct 13 11:19:58 PDT 2013

I see and I agree, this might cause huge different resulting in a feature
detection mess.

Another possibility mentioned in the first post might be to have a unique
link such

<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.

<script src="my-assets/js/myfile.js"></script>
<img src="my-assets/images/img.png">

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 instead of the url and ignore such file
otherwise ?

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> wrote:

> On Oct 13, 2013 4:40 AM, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list