- From: Justin Lebar <justin.lebar@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 09:38:35 -0700
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Christoph P?per <christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote: > Justin Lebar: >> Christoph P?per <christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote: >>> >>> Why do you want to put this on the HTML level (exclusively), not the HTTP level? >> >> If you reference an image from a CSS file and include that CSS file in an HTML file which uses resource packages, the image can be loaded from the resource package. > > Yeah, it?s still wrong. > > Resource packages in HTML seem okay for the image gallery use case (and then could be done with ?link?), but they?re commonly inappropriate for anything referenced from ?link?, ?script? and ?style? elements. Your remark on loading order just proves this point: you want resource packages referenced before ?head?. You should move one step further than the root element, i.e. to the transport layer. We want resource packages to work for people who don't have the ability to set custom headers for their pages or who don't even know what an HTTP header is. I agree that it's a hack, but I don't understand how putting the packages information in the <html> element makes it inappropriate to load from a resource package resources referenced in link, script, and style elements. Is the issue just that the HTML file's |packages| attribute affects what we load when we see @import url() in a separate CSS file? This seems like a feature, not a bug, to me. SPDY will do this the Right Way, if we're patient. -Justin
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 09:38:35 UTC