Hi Yuri, On Jun 14, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Yuri Astrakhan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Based on many ideas that were put forth, I would like to seek comments on > this ZERO design. This HTML will be rendered for both M and ZERO subdomains > if varnish detects that request is coming from a zero partner. M and ZERO > will be identical except for the images - ZERO substitutes images with > links to File:xxx namespace through a redirector. > > * All non-local links always point to a redirector. On javascript capable > devices, it will load carrier configuration and replace the link with local > confirmation dialog box or direct link. Without javascript, redirector will > either silently 301-redirect or show confirmation HTML. Links to images on > ZERO.wiki and all external links are done in similar way. For M, you only want to do this when it's a zero carrier I guess? If not, just a straight link? > * The banner is an ESI link to */w/api.php?action=zero&banner=250-99* - > returns HTML <div> blob of the banner. (Not sure if banner ID should be > part of the URL) > > Expected cache fragmentation for each wiki page: > * per subdomain (M|ZERO) > * if M - per "isZeroCarrier" (TRUE|FALSE). if ZERO - always TRUE. > 3 variants is much better then one per carrier ID * 2 per subdomain. I'm wondering, is there any HTML difference between "M & isZeroCarrier == TRUE" and "ZERO"? Links maybe? Can we make those protocol relative perhaps? We might be able to kill the cache differences for the domain completely, while still supporting both URLs externally. -- Mark Bergsma <[email protected]> Lead Operations Architect Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
