Re: Proposal for SIZE attribute

> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> ++ [snip description of a UA sending a HEAD request for each individual 
> ++  inline and link anchor]
> 
> Ouch. trn is usually done over a local network, that doesn't really
> hurt. But doing a request for each linke, even if it is only a HEAD one,
> means a lot more traffic over the net. There are pages with hundreds of
> links (all those people with their bookmarks files on line), I even have
> a page with over 1000 links....
> 
> I agree that your suggestion would be the proper way to do it, as the
> refering document does not have to store information about the refered
> document. However, I am afraid the current state of technology is not
> good enough to do it without paying a heavy price.
> 

I support the introduction of a SIZE attribute for the reasons you 
mention.  While a somewhat inelegant solution, it is really the only 
practical one until the next major overhaul of the WWW 
infrastructure.  Compatibility should not be a problem as the 
attribute is purely optional and can, in any case, be safely ignored 
if a better method of obtaining such information becomes available in 
the future.  It is also not totally unprecidented; the MEDIA 
attribute was proposed with similar goals in mind.  

--
Michael Seaton(mseaton@inforamp.net)

Received on Wednesday, 10 January 1996 02:36:55 UTC