- From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:53:05 -0400
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > 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. [snip] > 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. [snip] Yes? A HTTP request header that gives the only-replace IDs requested, and the server is free to pare the page down to that (or not). I hit reply to point out this possibility but then saw you already basically thought of it, but a query parameter is not a good method: it'll break bookmarking ... and preserving bookmarking is one of the most attractive aspects of this proposal. [snip] > 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. I'm guessing that the rare case where you need to write into a replaced ID you can simply have a JS hook that fires on the load and fixes up the replaced sections as needed.
Received on Saturday, 17 October 2009 01:53:05 UTC