- From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 09:44:45 +0900
- To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote: > > Re, re-evaluation previous elements: note that UA *can*, just as it does > > today (modulo some error conditions), hold painting until it finds all > the > > stylesheets, regardless of the <link> position in the document. So, > > assuming that's the default behavior, allowing <link> in body doesn't > > change anything short of reflecting what developers are already doing. > That > > said, the UA *could* use the position of the <link> element in the body > as > > a hint to optimize how it renders -- the exact logic here is deferred to > > the UA... Similarly, assuming UA follows the render-optimization > heuristic, > > the developers *can* optimize the content of the positioned stylesheets > to > > minimize reflows, etc. > > I talked more with a rendering & layout expert in our team, and he pointed > out that we may need to add a new attribute to trigger this behavior since > many existing websites have link elements to load stylesheets that affect > contents above it. But that should be a relatively simple & > straightforward change to the proposal. Makes sense, Jason (IE) also mentioned that we might need some <meta> opt-in flag, or some such... That said, before we go there, I'd love to see if we can gather some data on potential impact of making this opt-in vs opt-out. ig
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2014 00:45:49 UTC