Review Suggested Edit

You can't approve or reject suggested edits because you haven't yet earned the Edit Posts ability.

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.
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"

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"

installation cdn

Communities

Review Suggested Edit