- From: Chad Austin <caustin@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 16:48:58 -0700
- To: Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Chad Austin <caustin@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I believe this proposal is very easy to implement: just plumb the priority >> value through to the prioritizing network layer browsers already >> implement. >> > What will it take to get this added to the spec? >> > > 0-7 priority is not sufficient. See previous discussion / proposal: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Aug/0081.html > I would LOVE to have more bits of priority. :) Our particular use case would be satisfied by 7, but if priority was a general 32-bit integer, we would take full advantage of that. I do not understand how to map desired 3D asset priorities onto the HTTP 2.0 dependency graph. We don't have a set of dependent resources - just a priority for each one. Does HTTP 2.0's dependency graph + weights system allow traditional priority semantics? That is, higher-priority resources would be serviced before lower-priority resources, unless resource capacity remains available. I intend to ask on the HTTP-BIS mailing list, but perhaps somebody here who is more caught up on HTTP 2.0 can explain it to me... Thanks, -- Chad Austin http://chadaustin.me
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 23:49:29 UTC