Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Users Search
Help Dashboard Sign In Sign Up
Q&A
Q&A
Posts Tags Edits
Create Post

Post History

60%
+1 −0
Q&A Is the difference in Codidact's CDN guidance intentional?

0 answers  ·  posted 1y ago by trichoplax‭  ·  edited 1y ago by trichoplax‭

Question installation cdn
#4: Post edited by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2023-04-14T15:08:48Z (over 1 year ago)
Explain deliberate typo
  • Codidact has a [guide to installing Co-Design]. The section "Using a pre-built version" recommends using a [CDN].
  • I notice that the CDN recommended in the guide is different to the CDN used in the Codidact source code:
  • - The guide uses `unpkg.com`
  • - The source code uses `cdn.jsdelivr.net`
  • There is also a difference in what version is used:
  • - The guide uses `@latest` so will always get the most recent version
  • - The source code currently uses `@0.12.5` so will not use any subsequently released version without a code change
  • The usage in the source code can be seen for example in [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb], on line 22 and line 36.
  • Line 22:
  • ```ruby
  • <%= stylesheet_link_tag "https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/dist/codidact.css" %>
  • ```
  • Line 36:
  • ```ruby
  • <scrpt src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/js/co-design.js" defer></scrpt>
  • ```
  • Is there a reason that the guidance should make different recommendations than what Codidact currently uses? If so, would it be useful to add this reason to the guide? If not, should either the guide or the source code be changed so that they are consistent?
  • ---
  • In the later section of the guide called "Minimal HTML template", the Co-Design JavaScript is added from a CDN, but the CSS is local. Is this an oversight? Should there be either an explanation or a fix to the guide?
  • [guide to installing Co-Design]: https://design.codidact.org/setup/installation/ "Guide on codidact.org"
  • [CDN]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network "CDN on Wikipedia"
  • [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb]: https://github.com/codidact/qpixel/blob/dd905a7504b204001d51ac50462d26e1a9adf52a/app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb#L22-L36 "View lines 22 to 36 on GitHub"
  • Codidact has a [guide to installing Co-Design]. The section "Using a pre-built version" recommends using a [CDN].
  • I notice that the CDN recommended in the guide is different to the CDN used in the Codidact source code:
  • - The guide uses `unpkg.com`
  • - The source code uses `cdn.jsdelivr.net`
  • There is also a difference in what version is used:
  • - The guide uses `@latest` so will always get the most recent version
  • - The source code currently uses `@0.12.5` so will not use any subsequently released version without a code change
  • The usage in the source code can be seen for example in [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb], on line 22 and line 36.
  • Line 22:
  • ```ruby
  • <%= stylesheet_link_tag "https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/dist/codidact.css" %>
  • ```
  • Line 36:
  • ```ruby
  • <scrpt src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/js/co-design.js" defer></scrpt>
  • ```
  • *Note that the previous code block has a deliberate typo to avoid using the "script" opening or closing tag which currently cause problems - the correct code can be seen by following the link above.*
  • Is there a reason that the guidance should make different recommendations than what Codidact currently uses? If so, would it be useful to add this reason to the guide? If not, should either the guide or the source code be changed so that they are consistent?
  • ---
  • In the later section of the guide called "Minimal HTML template", the Co-Design JavaScript is added from a CDN, but the CSS is local. Is this an oversight? Should there be either an explanation or a fix to the guide?
  • [guide to installing Co-Design]: https://design.codidact.org/setup/installation/ "Guide on codidact.org"
  • [CDN]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network "CDN on Wikipedia"
  • [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb]: https://github.com/codidact/qpixel/blob/dd905a7504b204001d51ac50462d26e1a9adf52a/app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb#L22-L36 "View lines 22 to 36 on GitHub"
#3: Post edited by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2023-04-14T15:00:46Z (over 1 year ago)
Typo
  • Codidact has a [guide to installing Co-Design]. The section "Using a pre-built version" recommends using a [CDN].
  • I notice that the CDN recommended in the guide is different to the CDN used in the Codidact source code:
  • - The guide uses `unpkg.com`
  • - The source code uses `cdn.jsdelivr.net`
  • There is also a difference in what version is used:
  • - The guide uses `@latest` so will always get the most recent version
  • - The source code currently uses `@0.12.5` so will not use any subsequently released version without a code change
  • The usage in the source code can be seen for example in [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb], on line 22 and line 36.
  • Line 22:
  • ```ruby
  • <%= stlesheet_link_tag "https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/dist/codidact.css" %>
  • ```
  • Line 36:
  • ```ruby
  • <scrpt src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/js/co-design.js" defer></scrpt>
  • ```
  • Is there a reason that the guidance should make different recommendations than what Codidact currently uses? If so, would it be useful to add this reason to the guide? If not, should either the guide or the source code be changed so that they are consistent?
  • ---
  • In the later section of the guide called "Minimal HTML template", the Co-Design JavaScript is added from a CDN, but the CSS is local. Is this an oversight? Should there be either an explanation or a fix to the guide?
  • [guide to installing Co-Design]: https://design.codidact.org/setup/installation/ "Guide on codidact.org"
  • [CDN]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network "CDN on Wikipedia"
  • [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb]: https://github.com/codidact/qpixel/blob/dd905a7504b204001d51ac50462d26e1a9adf52a/app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb#L22-L36 "View lines 22 to 36 on GitHub"
  • Codidact has a [guide to installing Co-Design]. The section "Using a pre-built version" recommends using a [CDN].
  • I notice that the CDN recommended in the guide is different to the CDN used in the Codidact source code:
  • - The guide uses `unpkg.com`
  • - The source code uses `cdn.jsdelivr.net`
  • There is also a difference in what version is used:
  • - The guide uses `@latest` so will always get the most recent version
  • - The source code currently uses `@0.12.5` so will not use any subsequently released version without a code change
  • The usage in the source code can be seen for example in [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb], on line 22 and line 36.
  • Line 22:
  • ```ruby
  • <%= stylesheet_link_tag "https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/dist/codidact.css" %>
  • ```
  • Line 36:
  • ```ruby
  • <scrpt src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/js/co-design.js" defer></scrpt>
  • ```
  • Is there a reason that the guidance should make different recommendations than what Codidact currently uses? If so, would it be useful to add this reason to the guide? If not, should either the guide or the source code be changed so that they are consistent?
  • ---
  • In the later section of the guide called "Minimal HTML template", the Co-Design JavaScript is added from a CDN, but the CSS is local. Is this an oversight? Should there be either an explanation or a fix to the guide?
  • [guide to installing Co-Design]: https://design.codidact.org/setup/installation/ "Guide on codidact.org"
  • [CDN]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network "CDN on Wikipedia"
  • [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb]: https://github.com/codidact/qpixel/blob/dd905a7504b204001d51ac50462d26e1a9adf52a/app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb#L22-L36 "View lines 22 to 36 on GitHub"
#2: Post edited by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2023-04-14T15:00:24Z (over 1 year ago)
Add code without lines that were rejected on initial posting
  • Codidact has a [guide to installing Co-Design]. The section "Using a pre-built version" recommends using a [CDN].
  • I notice that the CDN recommended in the guide is different to the CDN used in the Codidact source code:
  • - The guide uses `unpkg.com`
  • - The source code uses `cdn.jsdelivr.net`
  • There is also a difference in what version is used:
  • - The guide uses `@latest` so will always get the most recent version
  • - The source code currently uses `@0.12.5` so will not use any subsequently released version without a code change
  • The usage in the source code can be seen for example in [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb], on line 22 and line 36.
  • Is there a reason that the guidance should make different recommendations than what Codidact currently uses? If so, would it be useful to add this reason to the guide? If not, should either the guide or the source code be changed so that they are consistent?
  • ---
  • In the later section of the guide called "Minimal HTML template", the Co-Design JavaScript is added from a CDN, but the CSS is local. Is this an oversight? Should there be either an explanation or a fix to the guide?
  • [guide to installing Co-Design]: https://design.codidact.org/setup/installation/ "Guide on codidact.org"
  • [CDN]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network "CDN on Wikipedia"
  • [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb]: https://github.com/codidact/qpixel/blob/dd905a7504b204001d51ac50462d26e1a9adf52a/app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb#L22-L36 "View lines 22 to 36 on GitHub"
  • Codidact has a [guide to installing Co-Design]. The section "Using a pre-built version" recommends using a [CDN].
  • I notice that the CDN recommended in the guide is different to the CDN used in the Codidact source code:
  • - The guide uses `unpkg.com`
  • - The source code uses `cdn.jsdelivr.net`
  • There is also a difference in what version is used:
  • - The guide uses `@latest` so will always get the most recent version
  • - The source code currently uses `@0.12.5` so will not use any subsequently released version without a code change
  • The usage in the source code can be seen for example in [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb], on line 22 and line 36.
  • Line 22:
  • ```ruby
  • <%= stlesheet_link_tag "https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/dist/codidact.css" %>
  • ```
  • Line 36:
  • ```ruby
  • <scrpt src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@codidact/[email protected]/js/co-design.js" defer></scrpt>
  • ```
  • Is there a reason that the guidance should make different recommendations than what Codidact currently uses? If so, would it be useful to add this reason to the guide? If not, should either the guide or the source code be changed so that they are consistent?
  • ---
  • In the later section of the guide called "Minimal HTML template", the Co-Design JavaScript is added from a CDN, but the CSS is local. Is this an oversight? Should there be either an explanation or a fix to the guide?
  • [guide to installing Co-Design]: https://design.codidact.org/setup/installation/ "Guide on codidact.org"
  • [CDN]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network "CDN on Wikipedia"
  • [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb]: https://github.com/codidact/qpixel/blob/dd905a7504b204001d51ac50462d26e1a9adf52a/app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb#L22-L36 "View lines 22 to 36 on GitHub"
#1: Initial revision by user avatar trichoplax‭ · 2023-04-14T14:55:06Z (over 1 year ago) 
Is the difference in Codidact's CDN guidance intentional?
Codidact has a [guide to installing Co-Design]. The section "Using a pre-built version" recommends using a [CDN].

I notice that the CDN recommended in the guide is different to the CDN used in the Codidact source code:
- The guide uses `unpkg.com`
- The source code uses `cdn.jsdelivr.net`

There is also a difference in what version is used:
- The guide uses `@latest` so will always get the most recent version
- The source code currently uses `@0.12.5` so will not use any subsequently released version without a code change

The usage in the source code can be seen for example in [app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb], on line 22 and line 36.

Is there a reason that the guidance should make different recommendations than what Codidact currently uses? If so, would it be useful to add this reason to the guide? If not, should either the guide or the source code be changed so that they are consistent?

---

In the later section of the guide called "Minimal HTML template", the Co-Design JavaScript is added from a CDN, but the CSS is local. Is this an oversight? Should there be either an explanation or a fix to the guide?


[guide to installing Co-Design]: https://design.codidact.org/setup/installation/ "Guide on codidact.org"
[CDN]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network "CDN on Wikipedia"
[app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb]: https://github.com/codidact/qpixel/blob/dd905a7504b204001d51ac50462d26e1a9adf52a/app/views/layouts/_head.html.erb#L22-L36 "View lines 22 to 36 on GitHub"
installation cdn