Noone has commented on this thread in some time; is this less controversial now?
On 24 September 2010 21:27, Alexey Proskuryakov <a...@webkit.org> wrote: > > Eric has made another good point in Bugzilla - we don't explain the purpose > in lots of other cases, from loading into a display:none frame to > XMLHttpRequest. Why should Prefetch be all the different? > Those requests are still part of loading a page as requested by the user, and failing them or returning a 500 will result in undefined behaviour; the result of failing part of a page is unpredictable. In the case of prefetches, we're in a very different space. The prefetch load has no effects on the DOM of the current resource (unlike display:none elements). There is no javascript event, or history impact, etc... (unlike XMLHttpRequest). A subsequent navigation will occur correctly whether there was no prefetch, a prefetch that failed, a prefetch that requires revalidation, and a prefetch that can be used without revalidation. So that, in my mind, leaves the balance in favour of emitting the header, as Mozilla & Safari currently do in similar situations. Thoughts? - Gavin _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
