W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

FW:Re: Multipart response support

From: Espen Antonsen - 24SevenOffice <ea@24SevenOffice.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:47:51 +0000
To: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com" <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2970954640-1175248139@24sevenoffice.com>
sending again due to formatting problem in previous mail. Sorry.

>*Why* do you think the scripts could not be cached?
>Furthermore: if the server is capable to produce a multipart/related 
>response with in-lined scripts, why can't it in-line the scripts into 
>the HTML body in the first place?
>Julian

I see your point. Images is probably a better example than javascript files. Only advantages having javascript in the multipart response is to have one javascript file to maintain on the server instead of having inline script in each html file. In *some* cases returning a multipart response to the client with javascript could be a better solution than having 10 external references to javascript files. When it comes to caching I do not see how a javascript in a multipart response can be cached and reused by another page. Off course that is when external referenced javascript should be used.

>Why can't you just include the Javascript inline like is already possible?
> Mike Schinkel

Good question. Only reason would be easier code management on the server, one file which can either be used as a external reference in a script tag or included by the server in the multipart response. But like I said above, dynamic images is a much better example of good use of multipart response.

Espen Antonsen
Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 09:49:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 30 March 2007 09:49:11 GMT