W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2013

Re: <img src="..." defer>

From: Steve Souders <souders@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:36:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+hp-_vux4e3GGx2uaXduZV=+8-Htxhw=6+xLpkQNjvQ=aqquw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jake Archibald <jakearchibald@google.com>
Cc: James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
SHOULD is a better word to use - between MAY and MUST.

-Steve


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:20 AM, Jake Archibald <jakearchibald@google.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:22 AM, James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>wrote:
>
>> Separately, I think MUST might be a little strong. Let me give you
>> another example... Imagine the user quickly fling scrolls past hundreds of
>> pages. Must we fetch every image along the way just because each was in the
>> viewport for 1/60th of a second? I'd argue it'd be better to skip them.
>>
>
> Hmm, good point, MUST doesn't make sense here, as you said, MAY is better.
> Although that allows browsers to treat images as optional, and an
> implementation that doesn't download images at all would be compliant.
>
>
>> Why wouldn't we rely on an adaptive imagery-like technique all of the
>> time though? It seems like if that works now, we should just continue to
>> use it in future situations.
>>
>
> That will solve the Guardian & BBC case yeah, when that spec gets agreed
> upon and implementations land. If that spec also captures format
> negotiation, I'm out of use-cases for allowing JS to get at images before
> they're requested. Fair enough.
>
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 15:37:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:35 UTC