- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:15:05 -0700
- To: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>
- Cc: Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com>, Angelina Fabbro <angelinafabbro@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Steve Orvell <sorvell@google.com>
Can you guys file a bug so that we remember? :DG< On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Angelina Fabbro >> <angelinafabbro@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I don't believe it's *needed* exactly, but we imagined somebody wanting >>> > to import HTML, use it destructively, then import it again. >>> >>> That does sound totally crazy. Can you give an example as to what someone >>> might want to do with this? Maybe it's not totally crazy and I'm just not >>> being creative enough. >> >> >> You have to assume some facts not in evidence, but imagine an import that >> runs script and generates content based on the current time, or some other >> dynamic. Then imagine a page injects a link tag, based on some event, to >> import the latest content. > > > Querystring parameters could be used for de-duplication-busting. > Unfortunately that will also be cache-busting. > >>> >>> >>Then I guess I need this spec'd :) >>> >>> I'd rather de-duping be a nice optimization performed by the user-agent >>> and hidden from me entirely. Although, now I'm really curious about an >>> argument for opting out of de-duping. >>> >> >> If there is no automatic de-duping then the author has to take care to >> specifically avoid duplication in various cases. Therefore, it cannot be an >> optimization, in the sense that it's not optional. It has to be required by >> the spec or you cannot rely on it. > > > I believe de-duplication should be required by the spec, since the effects > of de-duping are very visible--mutations to the imported document will be > present or not depending on whether it was de-duped or not. > >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Interesting. Why do you need [attribute to opt-out of deduping]? >>>> >>>> I don't believe it's *needed* exactly, but we imagined somebody wanting >>>> to import HTML, use it destructively, then import it again. >>>> >>>> That may be totally crazy. :) >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > Duplicate fetching is not observable, but duplicate parsing and >>>>> > duplicate >>>>> > copies are observable. >>>>> > >>>>> > Preventing duplicate parsing and duplicate copies allows us to use >>>>> > 'imports' >>>>> > without a secondary packaging mechanism. For example, I can load 100 >>>>> > components that each import 'base.html' without issue. Without this >>>>> > feature, >>>>> > we would need to manage these dependencies somehow; either manually, >>>>> > via >>>>> > some kind of build tool, or with a packaging system. >>>>> >>>>> Then I guess I need this spec'd :) >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > If import de-duping is possible, then ideally there would also be an >>>>> > attribute to opt-out. >>>>> >>>>> Interesting. Why do you need it? >>>>> >>>>> :DG< >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > --
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 03:15:34 UTC