Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Exactly :)
Thanks James!
On 27/05/14 14:06, James Greene wrote:
> I like the `window.http` idea mentioned earlier by Michael. Something like:
>
> ```js
> window.http = {
> url: window.location.href,
> status: 404,
> headers: {
> /* ... */
> }
> };
> ```
>
> If implemented, this would also be easy to polyfill in older browsers using
> the duplicate AJAX request hack that Michael is using today (or a
> server-side generated inline script block if you want guaranteed
> correctness).
>
> Sincerely,
> James Greene
> Sent from my [smart?]phone
> On May 26, 2014 6:37 PM, "Michael Heuberger" <
> michael.heuber...@binarykitchen.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, something like that Austin.
>>
>> But like I mentioned, why add the status code inside the HTML code when
>> it's already available in the HTTP status header? Hence I raised
>> "redundancy" multiple times before.
>>
>> I could do that but not thanks. I still believe that JavaScript should
>> be able to parse the HTTP status headers.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Michael
>>
>> On 27/05/14 00:16, Austin France wrote:
>>> Hi from Random Observer
>>>
>>> Just trying to get my head around the requirement:-
>>>
>>> So we have an app that is served for any URL on the server (and so
>>> apart from the small html loader is only loaded for the initial
>>> request) and from that the server checks for the presence of the video
>>> and either returns a status 200 or 404 plus the app code which the
>>> javascript wants to use to display a video not available message or
>>> the video itself. The URI of the video presumably being derived from
>>> the URI of the page (not by anything passed by the server).
>>>
>>> The requirement is to be able to indicate to the app that the video
>>> does not exist in the initial request without requiring any additional
>>> informationt be passed to the client.
>>>
>>> Having the status code available to javascript though would obviously
>>> be ideal in this kind of setup, however as each URI is still returning
>>> some html and I think the meta tag or body attribute suggestions
>>> previously mentioned a completely acceptable way to solve this issue
>>> (or variation of), I see it as a minor overhead.
>>> sort of thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Austin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 May 2014 12:09, David Bruant >> <mailto:bruan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 26/05/2014 01:52, Michael Heuberger a écrit :
>>>
>>> Serving different content based on
>>> different URLs (and status)
>>> actually does make a lot of sense when you
>>> want your user to see the
>>> proper content within the first HTTP
>>> round-trip (which saves
>>> bandwidth). If you always serve generic
>>> content and figure it all out
>>> on the client side, then either you always
>>> need a second request to
>>> get the specific content or you're always
>>> sending useless data during
>>> the first generic response which is also
>>> wasted bandwidth.
>>>
>>> Good point. From that point of view I agree
>>> but you forgot one thing:
>>> The user experience. We want mobile apps to be
>>> very responsive below
>>> 300ms.
>>>
>>> Agreed (on UX and responsive applications)
>>>
>>> Hence the two requests. The first one ensures
>>> the SPA to be
>>> loaded and the UI to be initialized. You'll
>>> see some animation, a text
>>> saying "Fetching data" whatever. Then the
>>> second request retrieves the
>>> specific content.
>>>
>>> What I'm
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Yeah, something like that Austin. But like I mentioned, why add the status code inside the HTML code when it's already available in the HTTP status header? Hence I raised "redundancy" multiple times before. I could do that but not thanks. I still believe that JavaScript should be able to parse the HTTP status headers. Cheers Michael On 27/05/14 00:16, Austin France wrote: > Hi from Random Observer > > Just trying to get my head around the requirement:- > > So we have an app that is served for any URL on the server (and so > apart from the small html loader is only loaded for the initial > request) and from that the server checks for the presence of the video > and either returns a status 200 or 404 plus the app code which the > javascript wants to use to display a video not available message or > the video itself. The URI of the video presumably being derived from > the URI of the page (not by anything passed by the server). > > The requirement is to be able to indicate to the app that the video > does not exist in the initial request without requiring any additional > informationt be passed to the client. > > Having the status code available to javascript though would obviously > be ideal in this kind of setup, however as each URI is still returning > some html and I think the meta tag or body attribute suggestions > previously mentioned a completely acceptable way to solve this issue > (or variation of), I see it as a minor overhead. > sort of thing. > > > > > Regards > Austin > > > > > On 26 May 2014 12:09, David Bruant <mailto:bruan...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Le 26/05/2014 01:52, Michael Heuberger a écrit : > > Serving different content based on > different URLs (and status) > actually does make a lot of sense when you > want your user to see the > proper content within the first HTTP > round-trip (which saves > bandwidth). If you always serve generic > content and figure it all out > on the client side, then either you always > need a second request to > get the specific content or you're always > sending useless data during > the first generic response which is also > wasted bandwidth. > > Good point. From that point of view I agree > but you forgot one thing: > The user experience. We want mobile apps to be > very responsive below > 300ms. > > Agreed (on UX and responsive applications) > > Hence the two requests. The first one ensures > the SPA to be > loaded and the UI to be initialized. You'll > see some animation, a text > saying "Fetching data" whatever. Then the > second request retrieves the > specific content. > > What I'm proposing is that all the relevant > content is served within > the *first* request. The URL is used by the client > to express to the > server (with arbitrary granularity, it depends on > your app, obviously) > what the user wants. > What I'm proposing is not two requests to get the > proper content, but > only one. The user doesn't even have to wait with > a useless "Fetching > data" screen; the useful content is just there > within the first > request (hence server-side rendering with React or > Moustache or else > being useful). > > Yeah of course I could do that too. It is > psychologically proven that > the subjective waiting time is shorter when you see > something as soon as > possible. > > Yes and what I'm suggesting is providing actual content as > soon as > possible. The whole idea of the "critical rendering path" > is exactly > about engineering you
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
ent content on 404, the user has to wait: >>> 1) the HTML to be downloaded (which naturally displays the page) >>> 2) (then, you can improve the experience with the JS code which >>> downloads while the user is reading that they're on the wrong page) >> Good summary! I've been thinking about this a lot before myself and >> tried it myself. >> >> I didn't decide for the latter method because I wanted to process / >> treat all the pages the same way > (this is what I called above "serving the exact same content on every > URL") > >> without exceptions to keep the code on >> the server side as simple as possible. And it would become too >> complicated and really bad. When the HTML is downloaded, then it is >> rendered and as long as the JS code is not ready, you are in an >> undefined state. >> >> Also, think of other things i.E. navigation elements which are totally >> JS driven. I'd have to add more hacks, bend my framework to make it work >> for this case and so on. Just too complicated and cost more at the end. >> >> I want to treat all the pages the same way with "one" code. This would >> work if the HTTP status code is readable from within JavaScript. > That's the heart of the problem I believe. You trapped yourself into > some framework design choices and wish a change in the platform to > accomodate your current architecture; have the platform pay for your > technical debt in a way :-/ I like that and totally agree. But I disagree that I am trapped myself into a framework problem. I strongly believe that this could happen to any framework that embraces the single page app architecture. No, I would never ask the platform to pay for my technical debt. Michael PS: I am getting a bit tired of these emails. Don't get me wrong, I have to work elsewhere to make a living - thanks for your understanding if I sound a little tired but am grateful for your good comments that make me think a lot. -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Wonderful, great input Karl, thanks! Very true about the sensitiveness of the servers. Yes, accessing the HTTP headers directly from DOM would be awesome (without the need for an additional request!) On 26/05/14 13:10, Karl Dubost wrote: > Michael, > > A praise for more than HTTP status code. > > Le 23 mai 2014 à 12:36, Michael Heuberger > a écrit : >> There is a need to obtain the HTTP status code for the page itself from >> JavaScript: >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999886 > > We could do better. HTTP Code is yet another very specific bit of information. > A question which is very often asked is how to access the HTTP headers from > JavaScript without having to go through a round trip of XMLHttpRequest. > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/220231/accessing-the-web-pages-http-headers-in-javascript > > I wish indeed that in the DOM there would be a way to access a JSON object > with the full HTTP response headers and status line included. > > One of the reasons to record the full response instead of having to create an > additional request is that some headers are time sensitive and some servers > are very sensitive to the type of requests made. For example, some servers > will (wrongly) send a different response for headers and/or status line if > the HTTP request is made with a GET or a HEAD. > > > > -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Thanks heaps! On 26/05/14 12:29, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > You might want to review http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ . > > In particular: > http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F > > HTH, > Silvia. > > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Michael Heuberger > wrote: >> Hi Jasper >> >> On 26/05/14 08:09, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: >>>>>> * It is a redundancy. The browser already knows the status code, just >>>>>> not JavaScript. >>>>> That argument can equally well be used the other way round: it's a >>>>> redundancy to expose in JS something that be easily exposed by the >>>>> server. >>>> I understand your perspective but you cannot compare two entirely >>>> different things. Don't forget that most modern web apps are 99% driven >>>> by JavaScript. If the server returns a 404, JavaScript is still unable >>>> to read the initial HTTP status code. Think about it :) >>>> >>> The web server sends you back a response. It first sends the response code, >>> then the response headers, then the response body. >>> >>> If you can alter the response code from the server, why can't you alter the >>> response body? >> I know that my dear :) >> >> Whatever we alter on the server, Javascript on the client-side is still >> unable to read the HTTP status code. >> >> I already mentioned in earlier emails that altering the response body is >> a redundancy. The information is already in the header. >> >>>>>> * Adding inline JS
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hi Jasper On 26/05/14 08:09, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > >> * It is a redundancy. The browser already knows the status code, just not JavaScript. >>> That argument can equally well be used the other way round: it's a >>> redundancy to expose in JS something that be easily exposed by the >>> server. >> I understand your perspective but you cannot compare two entirely >> different things. Don't forget that most modern web apps are 99% driven >> by JavaScript. If the server returns a 404, JavaScript is still unable >> to read the initial HTTP status code. Think about it :) >> > The web server sends you back a response. It first sends the response code, > then the response headers, then the response body. > > If you can alter the response code from the server, why can't you alter the > response body? I know that my dear :) Whatever we alter on the server, Javascript on the client-side is still unable to read the HTTP status code. I already mentioned in earlier emails that altering the response body is a redundancy. The information is already in the header. > * Adding inline JS
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hi Qebui On 26/05/14 05:16, Qebui Nehebkau wrote: > >> Tell me a good reason why JavaScript should NOT have access to the >> status code? >> > There's always a good reason not to add new things. Call it inertia; every > new feature starts at -100 points. Something like this, which gives you > information you should already know and is only helpful when you've already > made some seriously questionable design decisions, probably shouldn't ever > overcome that initial deficit. Of course, that's just my opinion, but I > have a feeling I'm not the only one. That's an interesting point of view and I might agree with it for some issues. But not this one. Javascript does not have the information, the HTTP status code, we already know (in the HTTP header). To be correct, JavaScript is unable to read the HTTP header. The information is already there, just not "accessible". The browser scans the HTTP header. Why not pass it along to JavaScript? IMO this is not really "adding a new thing" but "opening a door". Michael -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
e is not ready, you are in an undefined state. Also, think of other things i.E. navigation elements which are totally JS driven. I'd have to add more hacks, bend my framework to make it work for this case and so on. Just too complicated and cost more at the end. I want to treat all the pages the same way with "one" code. This would work if the HTTP status code is readable from within JavaScript. > >> PS: I wonder how the WhatWG procedure looks like? Are you all working >> for the WhatWG and deciding which features to implement? > Others will correct the specifics, but the WHATWG is an informal (?) > group of browser vendors. This mailing list is open to anyone (and > obviously web browser engineers participate to this list). Thanks! Anyone a web browser engineer here? I'd like to read a comment from them. > In the end, browser vendors make the call of what they want to > implement (regardless of any sort "standardization" process as EME > showed again, thanks Microsoft and Google!). Browser vendors have a > lot on their plates, so they'll implement something only if they see > strong support or a strong need. I believe that's why you've been sent > to this mailing-list by Mozilla engineers ;-) Right, I see that :) Is lots of politics involved? Tell me, do I need lots of supporters for my feature request to push through my idea? > > I'm personally not attached to any browser vendor (but contribute to > MDN and a couple of Mozilla projects occasionally). I don't make any > decision. I'm a web developer, carrying a web developer point of view > (which browser vendors make what they want of but is sometimes helpful > for them to figure out what to implement and what not). > Basically, I'm just making conversation :-) Cool, thanks for sharing and conversing :) Michael -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hi Tobie On 26/05/14 00:51, Tobie Langel wrote: > On May 25, 2014, at 13:48, Michael Heuberger > wrote: > >>>> * It is a redundancy. The browser already knows the status code, just >>>> not JavaScript. >>> That argument can equally well be used the other way round: it's a >>> redundancy to expose in JS something that be easily exposed by the >>> server. >> I understand your perspective but you cannot compare two entirely >> different things. Don't forget that most modern web apps are 99% driven >> by JavaScript. > That's data's made and far from the truth. :-) Okay, I do not know the exact percentage but it is definitely a very high number. All I wanted is to emphasize how important JavaScript is these days. Getting more and more popular. > >> If the server returns a 404, JavaScript is still unable >> to read the initial HTTP status code. Think about it :) > How so? What prevents the server from adding a 404 status code in HTML markup? I already explained this in a previous email. Should I repeat it here? In short: it's a redundancy when the same information is already sent in the HTTP header. > >>>> * Adding inline JS
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Bonjour David On 25/05/14 23:33, David Bruant wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Le 25/05/2014 07:10, Michael Heuberger a écrit : >> Look at Angular, their templates reside on the client side. For >> production, a grunt task can compress all files into one single, huge JS >> file that is served to the client, then for any subsequent pages no more >> resources are loaded from the server. It is a widely used practice. > Look at React.js, it allows to render templates on the server side and > it's been a selling point for some people (it allows to generate the > same page whether you are on the client or server-side. It helps for > SEO sometimes). Yeah, each framework has it's own way - nevertheless, Angular is very popular these days. > >> Also I mentioned earlier, PhoneGap is getting more popular and exactly >> uses the architecture I have described. > With application built with PhoneGap, the application (including the > main HTML file) is downloaded once, so that's different from a webpage > served from a server. > >>> Serving different content based on different URLs (and status) >>> actually does make a lot of sense when you want your user to see the >>> proper content within the first HTTP round-trip (which saves >>> bandwidth). If you always serve generic content and figure it all out >>> on the client side, then either you always need a second request to >>> get the specific content or you're always sending useless data during >>> the first generic response which is also wasted bandwidth. >> Good point. From that point of view I agree but you forgot one thing: >> The user experience. We want mobile apps to be very responsive below >> 300ms. > Agreed (on UX and responsive applications) > >> Hence the two requests. The first one ensures the SPA to be >> loaded and the UI to be initialized. You'll see some animation, a text >> saying "Fetching data" whatever. Then the second request retrieves the >> specific content. > What I'm proposing is that all the relevant content is served within > the *first* request. The URL is used by the client to express to the > server (with arbitrary granularity, it depends on your app, obviously) > what the user wants. > What I'm proposing is not two requests to get the proper content, but > only one. The user doesn't even have to wait with a useless "Fetching > data" screen; the useful content is just there within the first > request (hence server-side rendering with React or Moustache or else > being useful). Yeah of course I could do that too. It is psychologically proven that the subjective waiting time is shorter when you see something as soon as possible. > >> This is better than letting the user wait about 700ms until the user >> sees something on the screen. > I'm proposing for the user to wait 0ms (ignoring uncompressible > networking time of course) until the user sees something useful. Huh, 0ms? Database queries take some time ... ... but that's not the issue here. Let's stick to the topic please :) > >>> On this topic, I recommend watching [1] which introduces the idea of >>> "critical rendering path". Given your focus on performance and >>> preventing wasted bandwidth, I think you'll be interested. >> Thanks for the link but I am Deaf and do not understand what they talk >> on YouTube :( > I apologize for mistakenly assuming video was a proper format for > everyone to consume. > You can find the slide deck at > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IRHyU7_crIiCjl0Gvue0WY3eY_eYvFQvSfwQouW9368/present#slide=id.p19 > It should be self-sufficient. I'm happy to answer questions if it isn't. No problem, you couldn't know before that I am Deaf. Thanks, will study these slides tomorrow. > > And credit where it's due, everytime I wrote above "what I'm > proposing" it is just a reformulation of my understanding of Ilya > Grigorik's presentation on the critical rendering path (I just add an > emphasis on content). > >>>> Furthermore you can convert a whole single page app into an iPhone app >>>> with PhoneGap. All the HTML resides in the app, not on the server. >>>> That's a very different approach and a good reason why JavaScript has >>>> the right to know if the HTTP request resulted into a 200 or a 404. >>> If all the HTML resides in the app, not on the server, then it wasn't >>> served via HTTP, so there is no 200 or 404 to inform about (since no >>> HTTP request occured). >> Ah, well spotted. PhoneGap comes with two options: >> a) You
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hi Tobie >> * It is a redundancy. The browser already knows the status code, just >> not JavaScript. > That argument can equally well be used the other way round: it's a > redundancy to expose in JS something that be easily exposed by the > server. I understand your perspective but you cannot compare two entirely different things. Don't forget that most modern web apps are 99% driven by JavaScript. If the server returns a 404, JavaScript is still unable to read the initial HTTP status code. Think about it :) >> * Adding inline JS
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hi Tobie
I've been thinking about that too before but IMO this is not clean for a
two reasons:
* It is a redundancy. The browser already knows the status code, just
not JavaScript.
* Adding inline JS slows down the page load.
Believe me, I have asked many web developers around the globe, tweeted
about my idea and contacted Mozilla. Everyone thinks this would be a
great addition to JavaScript and there were no objections.
Tell me a good reason why JavaScript should NOT have access to the
status code?
On 25/05/14 19:09, Tobie Langel wrote:
> On May 25, 2014, at 8:59, Michael Heuberger
> <michael.heuber...@binarykitchen.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Silvia for your comment but I think we turn in circles.
>>
>> I know you mean it well but this is not the case as I mentioned it over
>> and over again in my previous emails.
>>
>> Let me repeat, the whole SPA of mine is always loaded, no matter if it's
>> a 404 or not so that a nice 404 can be rendered on the client-side. No
>> piece is missing here. To make this work, Javascript needs to be able to
>> have access to the HTTP status code of the initial page load. I can
>> count more reasons or read my previous emails.
>>
>> Something like `window.http.status` would be really awesome.
> Why can't you just set that value server-side (e.g. In a meta tag or
> even using a script tag) and retrieve it on the client? E.g. In pseudo
> PHP:
>
> <script>var http = { status: <?php print response->status php>};
>
> --tobie
--
Binary Kitchen
Michael Heuberger
4c Dunbar Road
Mt Eden
Auckland 1024
(New Zealand)
Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81
Email mich...@binarykitchen.com
Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Thanks Silvia for your comment but I think we turn in circles. I know you mean it well but this is not the case as I mentioned it over and over again in my previous emails. Let me repeat, the whole SPA of mine is always loaded, no matter if it's a 404 or not so that a nice 404 can be rendered on the client-side. No piece is missing here. To make this work, Javascript needs to be able to have access to the HTTP status code of the initial page load. I can count more reasons or read my previous emails. Something like `window.http.status` would be really awesome. On 25/05/14 18:16, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Michael Heuberger > wrote: >> Hi David >> >> Interesting. Yes and no, I agree with some. See my comments below: >> >> On 25/05/14 06:53, David Bruant wrote: >>> Le 23/05/2014 10:04, Michael Heuberger a écrit : >>>>>> - Display a beautiful 404 page and hide parts of the navigation >>>>>> - Reveal navigation history to give users a better usability >>>>>> experience >>>>>> during 404s >>>>>> - And many more … >>>>> I agree with those entirely but couldn’t they also be achieved by >>>>> including the correct scripts on the 404 page issued from the server? >>>> No, it is a single page app. All the HTML templates are on the client >>>> side and loaded once during page load. And everything happens >>>> dynamically. In other words: You load everything once, then there is no >>>> further interaction with the server unless it's a specific query for >>>> data or alters data in the database. >>> "single page app" usually means that no interaction in a given page >>> will trigger a navigation (as long as there is JavaScript. A good SPA >>> will fallback to using links and forms if there is a problem with JS). >>> It does not mean that all HTML templates are on the client nor that >>> you serve the exact same thing for every URL be they 200s or 404s. >>> That's an definitely an option, but it's one you impose upon yourself. >> I understand. Okay we could debate about the definition of SPA. For >> fallbacks and special cases I deliver special files from the server when >> JS is disabled. But I think the definition of SPA nor its special cases >> are the main issue here. >> >> Look at Angular, their templates reside on the client side. For >> production, a grunt task can compress all files into one single, huge JS >> file that is served to the client, then for any subsequent pages no more >> resources are loaded from the server. It is a widely used practice. > If you're creating your JS file on the server and pulling in all > resources then, surely you can find out already at that time whether a > piece is missing and can't be loaded? That's not a client side issue, > but something that you'll need to deal with on the server. > > Silvia. > >> Also I mentioned earlier, PhoneGap is getting more popular and exactly >> uses the architecture I have described. >> >> Again, I cannot emphasize how cool it would be to obtain the HTTP status >> code from JavaScript! It would save SPAs and PhoneGap projects some >> bandwidth. >> >>> Serving different content based on different URLs (and status) >>> actually does make a lot of sense when you want your user to see the >>> proper content within the first HTTP round-trip (which saves >>> bandwidth). If you always serve generic content and figure it all out >>> on the client side, then either you always need a second request to >>> get the specific content or you're always sending useless data during >>> the first generic response which is also wasted bandwidth. >> Good point. From that point of view I agree but you forgot one thing: >> The user experience. We want mobile apps to be very responsive below >> 300ms. Hence the two requests. The first one ensures the SPA to be >> loaded and the UI to be initialized. You'll see some animation, a text >> saying "Fetching data" whatever. Then the second request retrieves the >> specific content. >> >> This is better than letting the user wait about 700ms until the user >> sees something on the screen. >> >>> On this topic, I recommend watching [1] which introduces the idea of >>> "critical rendering path". Given your focus on performance and >>> preventing wasted bandwidth, I think you'll be interested. >> Thanks for the link but I am Deaf and do not underst
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hi David Interesting. Yes and no, I agree with some. See my comments below: On 25/05/14 06:53, David Bruant wrote: > Le 23/05/2014 10:04, Michael Heuberger a écrit : >>>> - Display a beautiful 404 page and hide parts of the navigation >>>> - Reveal navigation history to give users a better usability >>>> experience >>>> during 404s >>>> - And many more … >>> I agree with those entirely but couldn’t they also be achieved by >>> including the correct scripts on the 404 page issued from the server? >> No, it is a single page app. All the HTML templates are on the client >> side and loaded once during page load. And everything happens >> dynamically. In other words: You load everything once, then there is no >> further interaction with the server unless it's a specific query for >> data or alters data in the database. > "single page app" usually means that no interaction in a given page > will trigger a navigation (as long as there is JavaScript. A good SPA > will fallback to using links and forms if there is a problem with JS). > It does not mean that all HTML templates are on the client nor that > you serve the exact same thing for every URL be they 200s or 404s. > That's an definitely an option, but it's one you impose upon yourself. I understand. Okay we could debate about the definition of SPA. For fallbacks and special cases I deliver special files from the server when JS is disabled. But I think the definition of SPA nor its special cases are the main issue here. Look at Angular, their templates reside on the client side. For production, a grunt task can compress all files into one single, huge JS file that is served to the client, then for any subsequent pages no more resources are loaded from the server. It is a widely used practice. Also I mentioned earlier, PhoneGap is getting more popular and exactly uses the architecture I have described. Again, I cannot emphasize how cool it would be to obtain the HTTP status code from JavaScript! It would save SPAs and PhoneGap projects some bandwidth. > Serving different content based on different URLs (and status) > actually does make a lot of sense when you want your user to see the > proper content within the first HTTP round-trip (which saves > bandwidth). If you always serve generic content and figure it all out > on the client side, then either you always need a second request to > get the specific content or you're always sending useless data during > the first generic response which is also wasted bandwidth. Good point. From that point of view I agree but you forgot one thing: The user experience. We want mobile apps to be very responsive below 300ms. Hence the two requests. The first one ensures the SPA to be loaded and the UI to be initialized. You'll see some animation, a text saying "Fetching data" whatever. Then the second request retrieves the specific content. This is better than letting the user wait about 700ms until the user sees something on the screen. > On this topic, I recommend watching [1] which introduces the idea of > "critical rendering path". Given your focus on performance and > preventing wasted bandwidth, I think you'll be interested. Thanks for the link but I am Deaf and do not understand what they talk on YouTube :( >> Furthermore you can convert a whole single page app into an iPhone app >> with PhoneGap. All the HTML resides in the app, not on the server. >> That's a very different approach and a good reason why JavaScript has >> the right to know if the HTTP request resulted into a 200 or a 404. > If all the HTML resides in the app, not on the server, then it wasn't > served via HTTP, so there is no 200 or 404 to inform about (since no > HTTP request occured). Ah, well spotted. PhoneGap comes with two options: a) You can choose to reside the whole HTML in the app or b) have it served from the server during the first HTTP request. Option a) saved bandwidth but you cannot update pages easily (option b). Option a) wouldn't need to know if it's a 200 or 404, you are right. Still, option b) needs to know the status code. Let me ask you another question: Is there a good reason NOT to give JavaScript a chance to find out the HTTP status code of the current page? Cheers Michael -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Exactly James. Now that single page apps become more popular I think this won't be an edge case in the near future. Tell me how I can help WhatWG to work on this idea? How does the process work? Cheers Michael On 24/05/14 05:56, James Greene wrote: > I think he wants to be able to serve the exact same single page no matter > what the status code is (i.e. including `404`s) and then be able to react > to the initial page status code on the client-side. > > A bit of an edge case as most people serve different pages with HTTP errors > but it is a logical use case. > > Sincerely, > James Greene > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer > wrote: > >> I had to deal with this on a script created IMG element the other day. I >> used onerror to deal with it. >> For xmlhttprequest you can use the status field. >> Why is that not enough? >> >> Silvia. >> On 23 May 2014 18:06, "Michael Heuberger" < >> michael.heuber...@binarykitchen.com> wrote: >> >>> Good points Mat >>> >>> In theory you have good points but in the real world it is more >>> complicated than that. See my comments below: >>> >>> On 23/05/14 19:49, Mat Carey wrote: >>>>> - Notify the administrator about a 404 by email with a response back >> to >>>>> the server >>>> But the server already knows about the 404, JS shouldn’t be needed/used >>> to re-inform the server of the status it’s already sent. >>> >>> Nowadays you can access other entities directly, i.E. a RIAK Database >>> server which returns a 404 if the ID in the query does not exist which >>> can be a raw HTTP request. This without any app logic in-between. >>> >>> ... or you have a cloud with multiple servers but only one of them is >>> responsible for error reporting. >>> >>> It is just an example. I could count more use cases where the feature is >>> really needed. >>> >>>>> - Display a beautiful 404 page and hide parts of the navigation >>>>> - Reveal navigation history to give users a better usability >> experience >>>>> during 404s >>>>> - And many more … >>>> I agree with those entirely but couldn’t they also be achieved by >>> including the correct scripts on the 404 page issued from the server? >>> >>> No, it is a single page app. All the HTML templates are on the client >>> side and loaded once during page load. And everything happens >>> dynamically. In other words: You load everything once, then there is no >>> further interaction with the server unless it's a specific query for >>> data or alters data in the database. >>> >>> Furthermore you can convert a whole single page app into an iPhone app >>> with PhoneGap. All the HTML resides in the app, not on the server. >>> That's a very different approach and a good reason why JavaScript has >>> the right to know if the HTTP request resulted into a 200 or a 404. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Michael >>> >>>> (I’m not against the original suggestion, I just don’t think these >>> particular use-cases demand a new feature) >>>> Mat Carey >>>> 07952258096 >>>> >>>> On 23 May 2014, at 07:52, Michael Heuberger < >>> michael.heuber...@binarykitchen.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi Julian >>>>> >>>>> Yes, with "AJAX" requests I meant using XMLHTTPRequest. >>>>> >>>>>> If the initial page load yields a 404 will there be any scripts to >>>>>> execute at all? >>>>> Oh yes, absolutely. Have you ever written a single page app? There is >>>>> lots of logic to execute when a 404 occurs. I could count plenty of >> use >>>>> cases and functions that make sense. Here some examples: >>>>> - Notify the administrator about a 404 by email with a response back >> to >>>>> the server >>>>> - Display a beautiful 404 page and hide parts of the navigation >>>>> - Reveal navigation history to give users a better usability >> experience >>>>> during 404s >>>>> - And many more ... >>>>> >>>>> All these above examples run on JavaScript. Because there is currently >>>>> no way for JavaScript to determine if the page load yielded a 404, a >>>>> subsequent request, namely a XMLHTTPRequest one is often added. I
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hi Silvia Yes, I know this trick but in my opinion it's a waste of bandwidth (a small one I know but multiply this with thousands of calls worldwide every hour ...) If we could obtain the status code from the first, raw HTTP request, then there is no need for this IMG trick anymore. Michael On 23/05/14 20:33, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > I had to deal with this on a script created IMG element the other day. I > used onerror to deal with it. > For xmlhttprequest you can use the status field. > Why is that not enough? > > Silvia. > On 23 May 2014 18:06, "Michael Heuberger" < > michael.heuber...@binarykitchen.com> wrote: > >> Good points Mat >> >> In theory you have good points but in the real world it is more >> complicated than that. See my comments below: >> >> On 23/05/14 19:49, Mat Carey wrote: >>>> - Notify the administrator about a 404 by email with a response back to >>>> the server >>> But the server already knows about the 404, JS shouldn’t be needed/used >> to re-inform the server of the status it’s already sent. >> >> Nowadays you can access other entities directly, i.E. a RIAK Database >> server which returns a 404 if the ID in the query does not exist which >> can be a raw HTTP request. This without any app logic in-between. >> >> ... or you have a cloud with multiple servers but only one of them is >> responsible for error reporting. >> >> It is just an example. I could count more use cases where the feature is >> really needed. >> >>>> - Display a beautiful 404 page and hide parts of the navigation >>>> - Reveal navigation history to give users a better usability experience >>>> during 404s >>>> - And many more … >>> I agree with those entirely but couldn’t they also be achieved by >> including the correct scripts on the 404 page issued from the server? >> >> No, it is a single page app. All the HTML templates are on the client >> side and loaded once during page load. And everything happens >> dynamically. In other words: You load everything once, then there is no >> further interaction with the server unless it's a specific query for >> data or alters data in the database. >> >> Furthermore you can convert a whole single page app into an iPhone app >> with PhoneGap. All the HTML resides in the app, not on the server. >> That's a very different approach and a good reason why JavaScript has >> the right to know if the HTTP request resulted into a 200 or a 404. >> >> Cheers >> Michael >> >>> (I’m not against the original suggestion, I just don’t think these >> particular use-cases demand a new feature) >>> Mat Carey >>> 07952258096 >>> >>> On 23 May 2014, at 07:52, Michael Heuberger < >> michael.heuber...@binarykitchen.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Julian >>>> >>>> Yes, with "AJAX" requests I meant using XMLHTTPRequest. >>>> >>>>> If the initial page load yields a 404 will there be any scripts to >>>>> execute at all? >>>> Oh yes, absolutely. Have you ever written a single page app? There is >>>> lots of logic to execute when a 404 occurs. I could count plenty of use >>>> cases and functions that make sense. Here some examples: >>>> - Notify the administrator about a 404 by email with a response back to >>>> the server >>>> - Display a beautiful 404 page and hide parts of the navigation >>>> - Reveal navigation history to give users a better usability experience >>>> during 404s >>>> - And many more ... >>>> >>>> All these above examples run on JavaScript. Because there is currently >>>> no way for JavaScript to determine if the page load yielded a 404, a >>>> subsequent request, namely a XMLHTTPRequest one is often added. In my >>>> professional opinion a bad solution. >>>> >>>> Again, I strongly believe that this would be a huge improvement and >>>> avoids unnecessary network traffic. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Binary Kitchen >>>> Michael Heuberger >>>> 4c Dunbar Road >>>> Mt Eden >>>> Auckland 1024 >>>> (New Zealand) >>>> >>>> Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 >>>> Email mich...@binarykitchen.com >>>> Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com >>>> >> -- >> >> Binary Kitchen >> Michael Heuberger >> 4c Dunbar Road >> Mt Eden >> Auckland 1024 >> (New Zealand) >> >> Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 >> Email mich...@binarykitchen.com >> Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com >> >> -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Good points Mat In theory you have good points but in the real world it is more complicated than that. See my comments below: On 23/05/14 19:49, Mat Carey wrote: >> - Notify the administrator about a 404 by email with a response back to >> the server > But the server already knows about the 404, JS shouldn’t be needed/used to > re-inform the server of the status it’s already sent. Nowadays you can access other entities directly, i.E. a RIAK Database server which returns a 404 if the ID in the query does not exist which can be a raw HTTP request. This without any app logic in-between. ... or you have a cloud with multiple servers but only one of them is responsible for error reporting. It is just an example. I could count more use cases where the feature is really needed. >> - Display a beautiful 404 page and hide parts of the navigation >> - Reveal navigation history to give users a better usability experience >> during 404s >> - And many more … > I agree with those entirely but couldn’t they also be achieved by including > the correct scripts on the 404 page issued from the server? No, it is a single page app. All the HTML templates are on the client side and loaded once during page load. And everything happens dynamically. In other words: You load everything once, then there is no further interaction with the server unless it's a specific query for data or alters data in the database. Furthermore you can convert a whole single page app into an iPhone app with PhoneGap. All the HTML resides in the app, not on the server. That's a very different approach and a good reason why JavaScript has the right to know if the HTTP request resulted into a 200 or a 404. Cheers Michael > > (I’m not against the original suggestion, I just don’t think these particular > use-cases demand a new feature) > > Mat Carey > 07952258096 > > On 23 May 2014, at 07:52, Michael Heuberger > wrote: > >> Hi Julian >> >> Yes, with "AJAX" requests I meant using XMLHTTPRequest. >> >>> If the initial page load yields a 404 will there be any scripts to >>> execute at all? >> Oh yes, absolutely. Have you ever written a single page app? There is >> lots of logic to execute when a 404 occurs. I could count plenty of use >> cases and functions that make sense. Here some examples: >> - Notify the administrator about a 404 by email with a response back to >> the server >> - Display a beautiful 404 page and hide parts of the navigation >> - Reveal navigation history to give users a better usability experience >> during 404s >> - And many more ... >> >> All these above examples run on JavaScript. Because there is currently >> no way for JavaScript to determine if the page load yielded a 404, a >> subsequent request, namely a XMLHTTPRequest one is often added. In my >> professional opinion a bad solution. >> >> Again, I strongly believe that this would be a huge improvement and >> avoids unnecessary network traffic. >> >> Cheers >> Michael >> >> -- >> >> Binary Kitchen >> Michael Heuberger >> 4c Dunbar Road >> Mt Eden >> Auckland 1024 >> (New Zealand) >> >> Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 >> Email mich...@binarykitchen.com >> Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com >> -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hi Julian Yes, with "AJAX" requests I meant using XMLHTTPRequest. > If the initial page load yields a 404 will there be any scripts to > execute at all? Oh yes, absolutely. Have you ever written a single page app? There is lots of logic to execute when a 404 occurs. I could count plenty of use cases and functions that make sense. Here some examples: - Notify the administrator about a 404 by email with a response back to the server - Display a beautiful 404 page and hide parts of the navigation - Reveal navigation history to give users a better usability experience during 404s - And many more ... All these above examples run on JavaScript. Because there is currently no way for JavaScript to determine if the page load yielded a 404, a subsequent request, namely a XMLHTTPRequest one is often added. In my professional opinion a bad solution. Again, I strongly believe that this would be a huge improvement and avoids unnecessary network traffic. Cheers Michael -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
Re: [whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hi James Single page apps! These become more and more popular with frameworks like RactiveJS or AngularJS. There the first request is a HTTP request, for any subsequent requests an AJAX one is generated. The problem is the first HTTP request. The framework is unable to detect 404s with the first request because the status code cannot be obtained via JavaScript, hence a second request is made. In my eyes, a waste of bandwidth. Cheers Michael On 23/05/14 16:39, James Greene wrote: > I'm not opposed to this idea but... what Is a realistic use case for this? > > Sincerely, > James Greene > > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Michael Heuberger < > michael.heuber...@binarykitchen.com> wrote: > >> Hello WhatWG >> >> There is a need to obtain the HTTP status code for the page itself from >> JavaScript: >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999886 >> >> I think this would be a great feature to save additional traffic in an >> already congested internet. Because I see lots of queries made by >> XMLHttpRequest solely to obtain the HTTP status code of the same URL. >> >> If the global browser variable (JavaScript) would already hold the >> status code, then these queries would become obsolete and the internet >> becomes a bit less blocked. >> >> Let me know how to proceed with my proposal within WhatWG. >> >> Greetings from Auckland, >> Michael >> >> -- >> >> Binary Kitchen >> Michael Heuberger >> 4c Dunbar Road >> Mt Eden >> Auckland 1024 >> (New Zealand) >> >> Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 >> Email mich...@binarykitchen.com >> Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com >> >> -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
[whatwg] HTTP status code from JavaScript
Hello WhatWG There is a need to obtain the HTTP status code for the page itself from JavaScript: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999886 I think this would be a great feature to save additional traffic in an already congested internet. Because I see lots of queries made by XMLHttpRequest solely to obtain the HTTP status code of the same URL. If the global browser variable (JavaScript) would already hold the status code, then these queries would become obsolete and the internet becomes a bit less blocked. Let me know how to proceed with my proposal within WhatWG. Greetings from Auckland, Michael -- Binary Kitchen Michael Heuberger 4c Dunbar Road Mt Eden Auckland 1024 (New Zealand) Mobile (text only) ... +64 21 261 89 81 Email mich...@binarykitchen.com Website .. http://www.binarykitchen.com
