Re: FW:Re: Multipart response support

Espen Antonsen - 24SevenOffice schrieb:
>   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 

Maintenance is a separate issue. You can have a single source file, and 
let the server in-line it automatically.

> 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.

So where's the advantage with images? In multipart/related, you force 
the client to refetch them although it may already have them.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 10:02:54 UTC