- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:08:40 +0200
Justin Lebar: > We at Mozilla are hoping to ship HTML resource packages in Firefox 4, > http://people.mozilla.org/~jlebar/respkg/ | <html packages='[pkg1.zip img1.png script.js styles/style.css] | [static/pkg2.zip]'> > A page indicates in its <html> element that it uses one or more resource packages (?). Why do you want to put this on the HTML level (exclusively), not the HTTP level? As far as I undestand it, authors would usually put stylesheets, scripts and decorative images, but not HTML files into a resource package. These are usually common to several pages or the entire site or domain. Images might be referenced from within HTML or CSS files. Why did you decide against <link rel="resource-package" href="pkg1.zip#files='img1.png,?'"/> or something like that? (The hash part is just guesswork.) * Argument: What about incremental rendering? If there are, for instance, lots of (content) images in the resource file I will see them all at once as soon as the ZIP has been downloaded completely and decompressed, but with single files I would have seen them appear one after the other, which might have been enough.
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 03:08:40 UTC