Re: [resource-hints] splitting mandatory semantics into "preload" spec?

(as per discussion on the conf call today)

Please let me know if anyone has objections to the split within the next
week. If there are none, I'll land the proposed changes.

ig

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote:

> One of the themes at TPAC was that the current RH spec strays from the
> typical meaning of "hint" -- case in point, the whole notion of a
> "mandatory hint" is a misnomer. Also, there was some confusion about the
> use cases for "mandatory" vs. "optional" semantics enabled by the
> primitives.
>
> In an attempt to separate the concerns and clarify the use cases, I'd like
> to propose that we split RH into two pieces:
>
> (1) "Preload" spec that defines rel=preload with mandatory semantics
> (2) "Resource Hints" spec that defines rel=preconnect and extends
> rel=preload with optional semantics
>
> To that end, I've taken a first run at separating the two:
> - Preload:
> https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/resource-hints/d5027bffbf1eaa114c1d7906256339d118ea794a/index.html
> - Resource Hints:
> https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/resource-hints/e19f621dad9856a92bf43a06a62489c0058d19de/index.html
>
> Note that functionally there is *nothing new* in these drafts as compared
> to the previous RH draft. Instead, this is strictly an editorial update
> that aims to clarify the semantics and the use cases of the underlying
> primitives.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ig
>