W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2015

Re: [whatwg] <iframe async>

From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:43:40 +0100
Message-ID: <54F03C4C.4050406@gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Hi Anne,

Le 27/02/2015 08:57, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> I got feedback that isolating ads from your page through <iframe> is
> desirable, but that the impact on browser load UI, the load event, and
> "fast back", are very much not desirable.
It's the first time I read the term "fast back"? What does it refer to?

> It seems there should be some way to indicate that the <iframe> should
> function, but is not a critical part of the page. Perhaps this could
> be tied to sandboxing in some way.
It is my belief that providing the sandbox attribute should be a strong 
enough indicator that the iframe could be fully run in parallel (not 
just loaded async'ly).

A bit of context
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/lwzsJtZVf7Q
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=961689
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23040 (to guarantee 
isolated iframes to remain so).

Among the benefits of stuffing perf benefits with the sandbox attribute 
is that more people will use it for perf and get the security benefits 
along the way.

> This is somewhat similar tohttps://w3c.github.io/resource-hints/  but
> that seems rather indirect and does not include UI or "fast back"
> considerations.
Can async loading be retroffited into sandboxed iframes?

David
Received on Friday, 27 February 2015 09:44:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:27 UTC