3 ms·
Yep, a lot of people have come up with this idea independently (I'm one of them). It's pretty obvious, after all. But I don't think it will ever get much tract
by maw 12y ago
Yep, a lot of people have come up with this idea independently (I'm one of them). It's pretty obvious, after all.
But I don't think it will ever get much traction. Believe it or not, it's too far beyond the organizational and technical capacities of the people behind too many sites. The benefit, aside from slightly improved caching, will be minimal.
And if you're careful and meticulous you aren't doing braindead things like hotlinking javascript in the first place.
- acdha 12y agoThe thing which will give it traction[1] is performance: if a browser starts letting you host locally but say “Yes, this is the same jQuery you have in your cache” that'll be a big win for a number of sites, particularly on mobile where it could reduce expensive network traffic and reduce cache duplication. http://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/ http://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/
- Someone1234 12y agoYou assume that such people wouldn't just copy/paste a code fragment. If that code fragment happened to already come with a hash/CRC, they likely won't remove it.
- thomasfromcdnjs 12y agoThomas chiming in from cdnjs.com here. We are responsible for quite a lot of copy and paste script includes these days and could potentially push people in this direction. If anyone is serious about investigating hash'ed includes shoot me an email with your thoughts, my email can be found on my HN profile.