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

Re: is anyone looking at specifying something for background requests/downloads?

From: James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:46:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPVJQinWdBq+MW8Ai0ZZz+jrgOXphAkNjTcbiy_uENUAQUts4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:23 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> Sorry if this has already been raised. If so, please just point me to the
> relevant thread.
>
> Anyway, here are some use cases I'm looking at:
> * Don't wake up the radio. This is not an interactive network request,
> just fire it off whenever convenient. E.g. analytics. It's silly to wake up
> the radio and waste power just to fire off this request.
>

This sounds like Beacon.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/Beacon/Overview.html


> * Downloading a large chunk of data in the background. Let the user agent
> know that if there's contention, this network request should yield to any
> interactive one. E.g. web apps can download their next version (which may
> be large), sort of like how applications like browsers auto-update. You
> don't want this to contend with interactive browsing though.
>

This sounds sorta like lazyload. Is that good enough? Otherwise, it sounds
like it's just a more extreme form of it.

Also, this makes me think of Service Workers. Maybe we should reach out to
them about incorporating lazyload.

James
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 20:46:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:37 UTC