Cool, thanks for the feedback. It does seem like most people (well, outside of this list ;) like the direction a lot.
The one issue that I agree with, and would like to find an elegant solution to, is how to specify the manifest in the HTML instead of in the zip file to reduce blocking and start parsing earlier. I can't say that I know enough about HTML specifics to have an immediately useful answer here, I assume the <link> tag can't have content inside of it that could serve as the manifest? -- Alexander Limi · Firefox User Experience · http://limi.net On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Mike Belshe <m...@belshe.com> wrote: > Overall, I think the general idea. > > I'm concerned about the head-of-line blocking that it introduces. If an > administrator poorly constructs the bundle, he could significantly hurt > perf. Instead of using gzip, you could use a framer which chunked items > before gzipping. This might be more trouble than it is worth. > > Inside the browser, the caching is going to be kind of annoying. Example: > Say foo.zip contains foo.gif and baz.gif, and foo.zip expires in one week. > When the browser downloads the manifest, it needs to "unfold it" and store > foo.gif and baz.gif in the cache. Then, a week later, if the browser tries > to use foo.gif, it will be expired; does the browser fetch foo.zip? or just > foo.gif? Obviously, either will "work". But now you've got an inconsistent > cache. If you hit another page which references foo.zip next, you'll > download the whole zip file when all you needed was bar.gif. This is > probably a minor problem - I can't see this being very significant in > practice. Did you consider having the resources for a bundle be addressed > such as: http://www.foo.com/bundle.zip/foo.gif ? This would eliminate > the problem of two names for the same resource. Maybe this was your intent > - the spec was unclear about the identity (URL) of the bundled resources. > > I think it is a good enough idea to warrant an implementation. Once we > have data about performance, it will be clear whether this should be made > official or not. > > Mike > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Alexander Limi <l...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Alexander Limi <l...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM, James Robinson <jam...@google.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, actual numbers would be nice to have. >>> >>> >>> Steve Souders just emailed me some preliminary numbers from a bunch of >>> major web sites, so that should be on his blog shortly. >>> >> >> Numbers are up: >> >> http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2009/11/18/fewer-requests-through-resource-packages/ >> >> >> -- >> Alexander Limi · Firefox User Experience · http://limi.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
