W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2009

[whatwg] <a onlyreplace>

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:43:25 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0910161343s277083c7v4eee5197c15bdfa4@mail.gmail.com>
A few public responses to issues/questions brought up in IRC: (thanks,
Aryeh and Philip!)

How is this better than <iframe seamless> and <a target>?
=========================================================
It's significantly better in multiple ways, actually.

1. <iframe>s, like frames before them, break bookmarking.  If a user
bookmarks the page and returns to it later, or gets deeplinked via a
search engine or a link from a friend, the <iframe> won't show the
correct content.  The only way around this is some fairly non-trivial
url-hacking with javascript, altering the displayed url as the user
navigates the iframe, and parsing a deeplink url into an appropriate
url for the iframe on initial pageload.  @onlyreplace, on the other
hand, automatically works perfectly with bookmarking.  The UA still
changes urls and inserts history appropriately as you navigate, and on
a fresh pageload it just requests the ordinary static page showing the
appropriate content.

2. <a target> can only navigate one iframe at a time.  Many/most
sites, though, have multiple dynamic sections scattered throughout the
page.  The main site for my company, frex, has 3 (content,
breadcrumbs, and section nav) which *cannot* be combined to display as
a single <iframe>, at least not without including a whole bunch of
static content as well.  You'd have use javascript to hook the links
and manually navigate the additional iframes.  @onlyreplace, on the
other hand, handles this seamlessly - just include multiple ids in the
attribute value.

3. <iframe>s require you to architect your site around them.  Rather
than a series of independent pages, you must create a single master
page and then a number of content-chunk mini-pages.  This breaks
normal authoring practices (though in some ways it's easier), and
requires you to work hard to maintain accessibility and such in the
face of these atrophied mini-pages.  @onlyreplace works on full,
ordinary pages.  It's *possible* to link to a content-chunk mini-page
instead, but this will spectacularly break if you ever deeplink
straight to one of the pages, so it should become automatic for
authors to do this correctly.

4. <iframe>s have dubious accessibility and search effects.  I don't
know if bots can navigate <a target> links appropriately.  I also
believe that this causes problems with screen-readers.  While either
of these sets of UAs can be rewritten to handle <iframe>s better (and
handle @onlyreplace replacement as well), with @onlyreplace they
*also* have the option of just completely ignoring the attribute and
navigating the site as an ordinary multi-page app.  Legacy UAs will
automatically do so, providing perfect backwards compatibility.


Isn't if inefficient to request the whole page and then throw most of
it out?  With proper AJAX you can just request the bits you want.
======================================================
This is a valid complaint, but one which I don't think is much of a
problem for several reasons.

1. One of the big beneficiaries of @onlyreplace will be fairly
ordinary sites that are currently using an ordinary multi-page
architecture.  All they have to do is add a single tag to the <head>
of their pages, and they automatically get the no-flicker refresh of a
single-page app.  These sites are *already* grabbing the whole page on
each request, so @onlyreplace won't make them take any *additional*
bandwidth.  It will merely make the user experience smoother by
reducing flicker and keeping js-heavy elements of the page template
alive.

2. Even though site templates are usually weighter than the dynamic
portions of a site, it's still not a very significant wasteage.  For
comparison, my company's main site is roughly 16kb of template, and
somewhere around 2-3k of dynamic page content.  (Aryeh - I gave you
slightly different numbers in chat because I was counting wrong.)  So
that's a good 85% of each request being thrown away as irrelevant.
However, it's also *only 16kb*, and that's UNCOMPRESSED - after
standard gzip compression the template is worth maybe 5kb.  So I waste
5kb of bandwidth per request.  Big deal.  (According to Philip`, my
company's site's weight is just on the low side of average.)

3. Because this is a declarative mechanism (specifying WHAT you want,
not HOW to get it), it has great potential for transparent
optimizations behind the scenes.  For example, the browser could tell
the server which bits it's interested in replacing, and the server
could automatically strip full pages down to only those chunks.  This
would eliminate virtually all bandwidth waste, while still being
completely transparent to the author - they just create ordinary full
static pages.  Heck, you could even handle this yourself with JS and a
bit of server-side coding, intercepting clicks and rewriting the urls
to pass the @onlyreplace data in a query parameter, and have a
server-side script determine what to return based on that.  Less
automatic, but fairly simple, and still easier than using JS to do
this in the normal AJAX manner.  (And UAs that don't run javascript
but do support @onlyreplace will still work properly, just with a bit
more bandwidth waste.)


What about scripts in the page?
===============================
Semantically the replace operation should be identical to grabbing the
appropriate chunk of text from the new page and setting is as the
outerHTML of the appropriate element.  Any <script>s that are located
within this chunk would run in the exact same manner.  Scripts
elsewhere in the new page would not be run.


What about document.write()?  What if the important fragment of the
page is produced by document.write()?
====================================================
Then you're screwed.  document.write()s contained in <script> blocks
inside the target fragment will run when they get inserted into the
page, but document.write()s outside of that won't.  Producing the
target fragment with document.write() is a no-go from the start.
Don't do that anyway; it's a bad idea.
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 13:43:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:53 UTC