Here you can find the ClientsideNetworkControl project repo with zipped snapshots of the repo of the same name and its relatives. There is zero need for bundling or building in fact most of those things remove and break critical infrastructure at the core of the projects. Do not remove any modules or add any dependency-reliant code. This will break it.

• Setup of the tools can be as simple as literally one line of code. There is no need for imports, requires, dependency checks, log stripping etc.. Security and / or sanity checks and minification work* only if they do not mess with the code content (including functional dev-looking code and removing doc comment lines/blocks/attributions and separating the script modules). The goal is ease of use for users, and inline security, error checking, handling of fallbacks, without requiring third party bloating code or extra code that is not utiilized within the program itself.

  These things all compile into a no-nonsense, no overhead, modifiable utility* for devs to make a better user experience for users and devs alike. When everything is independent, and accessable to everything else, but none rely on any others, there is no need to worry about bundling and extensive test code. The test is built in and even if you screwed things up, you know exactly what and where, and it wont break the ux, other than the component itself not being available.

This is done with structured, error-aware, and failure-prepared code patterns.

Write it like it's going to break, not like it won't.

note: innovate and it's derivitives in this following context refer to all efforts to advance the subject of ones choosing, in this case that is open source stuff. however insignificant it may seem to you

It’s not only fair but also essential for innovators to receive credit—even when their ideas are experimental or only partially public. In the open-source ecosystem and beyond, recognition fuels further creativity and collaboration. When someone shares a bold, original idea, that initial spark can inspire others to refine, build upon, or even completely transform it into something monumental. By pointing out those contributions—whether through documentation, commit messages, or community discussions—we help ensure that credit is duly given, encouraging risk-taking and innovation.

The nature of experimental work means it might not be polished or fully integrated at first, but its influence can ripple outward in unexpected ways.

Even when the code or concept is a prototype, acknowledging its role provides context for later developments, and it honors the intellectual effort behind the idea. This practice not only rewards the original innovator but also strengthens the community, allowing others to trace the evolution of ideas and perhaps avoid reinventing the wheel.

This kind of recognition fosters a culture where others are encouraged to build on each other’s work.

Here are a few thoughts on how this could work in practice:

Retention of an "Origin Trail" in Source Documentation

Imagine if every feature or experimental concept came with an embedded "origin trail" in its documentation. For instance, when a new browser API or a CSS feature is introduced on MDN or similar platforms, there could be a minimal dedicated section that explains its genesis like the credits of a movie or the dedication of a novel to it's inspiration. A section that might include:

• Citations and References: Links back to the original proposal, technical blog posts, or even the experimental repository where the idea first appeared.
• Contributor Profiles: Short bios or links to the profiles of the individuals or teams that first developed the idea.
• Version History: A clear timeline showing how the feature has evolved through commits, discussions, and public experimentation.

This not only validates the innovative work but also creates a historical record—something developers can reference if they need to understand the context or to further their own projects.

Enhanced Attribution in Version Control Systems

Another approach could be tighter coupling of contributions with the projects they feed into: Forking vs. Cloning: As mentioned, a rule could be set up where repositories of experimental features are forked rather than simply cloned. With forks, the provenance is maintained, allowing for clear links between the original work and subsequent iterations. Every update or merge from the original source could be neatly tracked.

• Attribution Tags: Similar to commit signatures, projects could use metadata tags or even blockchain-like identifiers that ensure every contribution—no matter how experimental—is permanently linked back to its originator.
• Origin Nodes: Think of these as "anchor points" in the repository that serve as checkpoints for major contributions or milestones. They would help maintain a lineage of ideas even as the code diverges into various experimental and production branches.

Note:

3. Platforms and Documentation Standards Dedicated Sections for Innovation: MDN and similar platforms could have sections like "Origins and Evolution of [Feature X]" that include interactive timelines or even video interviews with the original contributors.

Open Attribution Systems: A standardized system across platforms could make it easier for both readers and developers to trace back an experimental concept to its source. This might even extend to citation frameworks similar to academic papers, which would finally formalize attribution in software development.

4. Community and Ecosystem Benefits Maintaining origin trails and enhanced lead attribution has a ripple effect across the community:

Collaboration and Inspiration: When innovators are recognized, it encourages a more collaborative spirit. Others might approach the original creators to discuss potential enhancements, leading to richer, more robust project ecosystems.

Accountability and Recognition: With clear attribution, it’s easier to acknowledge who contributed what, ensuring that any future successes are rightly credited. This transparency could also guard against issues like code plagiarism or uncredited reuse in commercial settings.

Unauthorized usage, reproduction, modification, or distribution of unlicensed original works—whether in whole or in part—violates copyright.

Consider:

Imagine spending countless hours designing and building a car. Collaboration is vital, but what if others take your blueprint, improve it behind closed doors, and leave you out? You miss out on valuable learning and see no benefit for your effort. They lose out on your contributions to further the work.

This is why permission and attribution matter.