HTTP-level solutions are vulnerable to broken proxies and caches, of which
there are many. This is why HTTP pipelining doesn't really work.
Yeah I know, but does that mean HTML should work around lack of
features in HTTP? I mean you could say HTML5 is vulnerable to broken
browsers :-)
Finally, there have been proposals for removing the need to sprite
altogether, by allowing authors to send a bunch of resources packed
into a single compressed archive, and just addressing individual files
inside of it.
Yeah, I'd think this isn't really a problem that should be solved as
part
Browsers could solve the editor use case by treating close tab as
hide tab for a minute or two before actually shutting down the page.
Then the problem becomes, how do you make it obvious to users that
they can get their work back by pressing a magic button somewhere?
The modal quit loop is
WebSockets doesn't let you open arbitrary ports and listen on them,
so, I don't think it can be used for what you want.
P2P in general is a lot more complicated than it sounds. It sort of
works for things like large movies and programs because they aren't
latency sensitive and chunk ordering
Is speech support a feature of the web page, or the web browser?
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Bjorn Bringert bring...@google.com wrote:
We've been watching our colleagues build native apps that use speech
recognition and speech synthesis, and would like to have JavaScript
APIs that let us
I have to wonder if it's worth trying to micro-optimize web APIs like
this. Your suggestions will squeeze out only a small amount of
additional performance - the goals will get a bit higher and we'll be
back at square one.
I know NativeClient isn't a proposed spec or standardised piece of web
That's one way to get a healthy performance boost (typically)
but where does the web developer stand in this work? Are
you suggesting native code should replace JavaScript?
For code where performance is critical (like complex animation code) yes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for better
Hiya,
I read the threads on whether local storage should be managed by the
browser or user with interest. I'm not sure if there was agreement on
this or not (didn't read the whole thing), but had an idea for one
solution. Namely, that local storage is indeed managed by the browser
automatically
