jason.orendorff at gmail.com
Fri Oct 25 18:22:50 PDT 2013
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:53 AM, François REMY
<francois.remy.dev at outlook.com> wrote:
> ± 4.- It's not http2.0 *or* .zip bundling. We could have both. Why not?
> Because using a ZIP file is a bad practice we certainly should not allow. As stated before, it will make the website slow [...]
It seems what you're saying is that there are already superior ways to
bundle JS modules and we don't need W3C to define another one.
Perhaps—but this definitely has nothing to do with the ES module
loaders proposal before TC39, which is bunding-system agnostic.
We'll be working with the HTML standards folks to decide how the
browser's default loader will work, but basically I expect it'll just
fetch URLs. That means it'll support HTTP2 out of the box, if the
server supports it, and "zip urls" if W3C decides to spec such a
thing. Apps can of course customize the loader if they need some
custom bundling scheme. So your beef is not with us or with the HTML
WG but with the TAG—or wherever the work on "zip urls" is taking place
these days (I really don't know).
The folks on this list are by and large not networking or Internet
More information about the es-discuss