- From: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:54:47 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMFeDTX5FQgnRenz9ZVkxQNfnS_x=705oL4CcYRdnJNQW-5xSg@mail.gmail.com>
I would agree with this. My initial thought when reading the proposal was SPDY as well. That said, there is ongoing discussion about improving the app-cache that is also relevant[1]. I am also planning on opening a discussion about programmatic control of a cache (probably not piggy-backed onto app-cache, which has important atomicity guarantees and no programmatic control, but possibly piggy-backed off of the File API). Between SPDY, improving app cache semantics, and a clean way to programmatically store remote assets that can be loaded via <script>, <link> and <img> tags, I think we have a solution that does not require creating a new packaging format. [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14702 Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com> wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > This is a proposal to add a packaging format transparent to browsers to > the > > charter. At Zynga, we have identified this as one of our most pressuring > > issues. Developers want to be able to send a collection of assets to the > > browser through a single request, instead of hundreds. > > > > Today, we misuse image and audio sprites, slicing them again as base64 > only > > to put them into weird caches. These are workarounds, and ugly ones, as > > well. None of the workarounds is satisfying, either in terms of > robustness, > > performance or simply, a sane API. Coincidentally, this is also one of > the > > most pressuring issues of WebGL. Since you are dealing with a lot of > assets > > with WebGL games, proper solutions must be found. > > I was once a believer in an approach like this, and supported previous > attempts at it like Mozilla's use of a zip + virtual paths. > > Now, though, SPDY seems to be moving along nicely enough that we don't > really need to worry about this. It's already supported in Chrome and > Firefox, and it lets you pull multiple assets in a single connection, > push assets that haven't yet been requested, and prioritize asset > retrieval. I don't feel there's any real need to worry about asset > packaging formats anymore. > > ~TJ > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 19:55:34 UTC