W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2010

[whatwg] HTML resource packages

From: Justin Lebar <justin.lebar@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 09:38:35 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikJNAhyuYXNr1J82k=fCL0pvBoOih+NM1_FKnir@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Christoph P?per
<christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote:
> Justin Lebar:
>> Christoph P?per <christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you want to put this on the HTML level (exclusively), not the HTTP level?
>>
>> If you reference an image from a CSS file and include that CSS file in an HTML file which uses resource packages, the image can be loaded from the resource package.
>
> Yeah, it?s still wrong.
>
> Resource packages in HTML seem okay for the image gallery use case (and then could be done with ?link?), but they?re commonly inappropriate for anything referenced from ?link?, ?script? and ?style? elements. Your remark on loading order just proves this point: you want resource packages referenced before ?head?. You should move one step further than the root element, i.e. to the transport layer.

We want resource packages to work for people who don't have the
ability to set custom headers for their pages or who don't even know
what an HTTP header is.  I agree that it's a hack, but I don't
understand how putting the packages information in the <html> element
makes it inappropriate to load from a resource package resources
referenced in link, script, and style elements.

Is the issue just that the HTML file's |packages| attribute affects
what we load when we see @import url() in a separate CSS file?  This
seems like a feature, not a bug, to me.

SPDY will do this the Right Way, if we're patient.

-Justin
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 09:38:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:59 UTC