- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:48:44 +0100
- To: Srirama ChandraSekhar <sekhar179@gmail.com>
- CC: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Srirama ChandraSekhar wrote: > Hi, > The idea looks very good. But I want to point out one scenario which > should be considered before going forward with this approach. Consider a > text only browser or a browser which doesn't want to display images or > doesn't want to execute javascript or doesn't support java script (may > be through settings change by the user), in this case the browser will > download the resource package file only to find that it has > unnecessarily downloaded many images and javascript file which are not > going to be used. To address this may be we can add some header through > which browsers should be able to tell the servers what resources should > the resource package file contain. > ... Which would make the package content-negotiated, which will make caching harder (in particular considering the many bugs related to "Vary"). BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 08:49:28 UTC