Re: [whatwg] Prefetch issues

2010-08-08 Thread Ian Hickson
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Eric Schurman wrote:

 As described, the link prefetching capability seems to have some 
 limitations that work counter to the performance of the page using it.
 
 It appears as though LINK elements are metadata elements and that these 
 may only be supported inside the HEAD of the document. If so, then this 
 is an issue in the real world, because at the time a web server flushes 
 chunks containing the HEAD section of a document, the links we would 
 want to prefetch are often not known. This is true for all the large 
 sites I've analyzed or worked at. For example, many pages on a site will 
 contain the same visual header, and we want to flush the HEAD and visual 
 header content while the server is in the process of figuring out what 
 the content of the page will be - which will contain the links we'd like 
 to prefetch.
 
 Am I reading this correctly?

This was indeed a limitation of the prefetch mechanism.


 One of the simplest approaches may be to add support for rel=prefetch 
 to A and AREA's, but it's been explicitly excluded from those. Why?

No good reason. Fixed.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'


[whatwg] Prefetch issues

2010-06-10 Thread Eric Schurman
As described, the link prefetching capability seems to have some
limitations that work counter to the performance of the page using it.

It appears as though LINK elements are metadata elements and that
these may only be supported inside the HEAD of the document. If so,
then this is an issue in the real world, because at the time a web
server flushes chunks containing the HEAD section of a document, the
links we would want to prefetch are often not known. This is true for
all the large sites I've analyzed or worked at. For example, many
pages on a site will contain the same visual header, and we want to
flush the HEAD and visual header content while the server is in the
process of figuring out what the content of the page will be - which
will contain the links we'd like to prefetch.

Am I reading this correctly? Or is there a something that would allow
the flushing scenario I describe above?

One of the simplest approaches may be to add support for
rel=prefetch to A and AREA's, but it's been explicitly excluded from
those. Why?

Another approach could be to allow LINK throughout the document. This
would allow for prefetching content like images even if you didn't
know them at HEAD rendering time.

Any opinions?


Re: [whatwg] Prefetch issues

2010-06-10 Thread Peter Beverloo
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 17:01, Eric Schurman eri...@gmail.com wrote:
 As described, the link prefetching capability seems to have some
 limitations that work counter to the performance of the page using it.

 It appears as though LINK elements are metadata elements and that
 these may only be supported inside the HEAD of the document. If so,
 then this is an issue in the real world, because at the time a web
 server flushes chunks containing the HEAD section of a document, the
 links we would want to prefetch are often not known. This is true for
 all the large sites I've analyzed or worked at. For example, many
 pages on a site will contain the same visual header, and we want to
 flush the HEAD and visual header content while the server is in the
 process of figuring out what the content of the page will be - which
 will contain the links we'd like to prefetch.

 Am I reading this correctly? Or is there a something that would allow
 the flushing scenario I describe above?

 One of the simplest approaches may be to add support for
 rel=prefetch to A and AREA's, but it's been explicitly excluded from
 those. Why?

 Another approach could be to allow LINK throughout the document. This
 would allow for prefetching content like images even if you didn't
 know them at HEAD rendering time.

 Any opinions?


While I have not found the original discussion about including the
prefetch relation in area and anchor tags, my guess would be that it's
a feature that would quite easily be abused by web authors. Adding
@rel=prefetch to all anchors is a lot easier than putting them in
the header, so why not just preload every page on the site? Again,
someone else will probably have the answer you're looking for.

Mozilla's Developer Center has a page about the attribute value[1]
which already suggests that they might add the feature on normal
anchor tags if there is sufficient interest in that. Their page also
contains a chapter about how to implement prefetching using the Link
HTTP header, which would be a solution if your website uses output
buffering.

Considering you're specifically talking about flushing the header
before the links are known, however, I'm assuming that won't be a
possibility either. The link tag is specifically used for metadata
about the current document, so using that across the entire document
doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Despite the possibility of abuse
by authors, it seems to me that it's a fair use-case for including the
attribute.

Regards,
Peter Beverloo

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Link_prefetching_FAQ


Re: [whatwg] Prefetch issues

2010-06-10 Thread Eric Schurman
Like you do say, the link header doesn't work for exactly the same
reason - we'd have already flushed.
It does seem like adding rel=prefetch to A and AREA may be the best solution.


On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Peter Beverloo pe...@lvp-media.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 17:01, Eric Schurman eri...@gmail.com wrote:
 As described, the link prefetching capability seems to have some
 limitations that work counter to the performance of the page using it.

 It appears as though LINK elements are metadata elements and that
 these may only be supported inside the HEAD of the document. If so,
 then this is an issue in the real world, because at the time a web
 server flushes chunks containing the HEAD section of a document, the
 links we would want to prefetch are often not known. This is true for
 all the large sites I've analyzed or worked at. For example, many
 pages on a site will contain the same visual header, and we want to
 flush the HEAD and visual header content while the server is in the
 process of figuring out what the content of the page will be - which
 will contain the links we'd like to prefetch.

 Am I reading this correctly? Or is there a something that would allow
 the flushing scenario I describe above?

 One of the simplest approaches may be to add support for
 rel=prefetch to A and AREA's, but it's been explicitly excluded from
 those. Why?

 Another approach could be to allow LINK throughout the document. This
 would allow for prefetching content like images even if you didn't
 know them at HEAD rendering time.

 Any opinions?


 While I have not found the original discussion about including the
 prefetch relation in area and anchor tags, my guess would be that it's
 a feature that would quite easily be abused by web authors. Adding
 @rel=prefetch to all anchors is a lot easier than putting them in
 the header, so why not just preload every page on the site? Again,
 someone else will probably have the answer you're looking for.

 Mozilla's Developer Center has a page about the attribute value[1]
 which already suggests that they might add the feature on normal
 anchor tags if there is sufficient interest in that. Their page also
 contains a chapter about how to implement prefetching using the Link
 HTTP header, which would be a solution if your website uses output
 buffering.

 Considering you're specifically talking about flushing the header
 before the links are known, however, I'm assuming that won't be a
 possibility either. The link tag is specifically used for metadata
 about the current document, so using that across the entire document
 doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Despite the possibility of abuse
 by authors, it seems to me that it's a fair use-case for including the
 attribute.

 Regards,
 Peter Beverloo

 [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Link_prefetching_FAQ