I've opened a bug to track this:

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote:
>> > Re, re-evaluation previous elements: note that UA *can*, just as it does
>> > today (modulo some error conditions), hold painting until it finds all
>> the
>> > stylesheets, regardless of the <link> position in the document. So,
>> > assuming that's the default behavior, allowing <link> in body doesn't
>> > change anything short of reflecting what developers are already doing.
>> That
>> > said, the UA *could* use the position of the <link> element in the body
>> as
>> > a hint to optimize how it renders -- the exact logic here is deferred to
>> > the UA... Similarly, assuming UA follows the render-optimization
>> heuristic,
>> > the developers *can* optimize the content of the positioned stylesheets
>> to
>> > minimize reflows, etc.
>> I talked more with a rendering & layout expert in our team, and he
>> pointed out that we may need to add a new attribute to trigger this
>> behavior since many existing websites have link elements to load
>> stylesheets that affect contents above it.  But that should be a relatively
>> simple & straightforward change to the proposal.
> Makes sense, Jason (IE) also mentioned that we might need some <meta>
> opt-in flag, or some such... That said, before we go there, I'd love to see
> if we can gather some data on potential impact of making this opt-in vs
> opt-out.
> ig

Reply via email to