- From: Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:36:12 +0900
- To: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKRe7JExQFfb9-gYiq3VrU0ye9kp95wtvL3f29kmvP5H4c5ETg@mail.gmail.com>
> > (1) I'm all for markup based solutions. > > Your proposal excludes client side adaptation. > sigh! It doesn't. Don't enable the server feature, or don't opt in, or provide properly sized images. Done deal. > > (5) Cache "fragmentation", whether based on unique URLs or on Vary is > the same - stuffing parameters into URLs doesn't magically increase cache > hit-rates. > > No one has suggested URL query parameters. If the client knows which > resources are available and can make the choice then only these distinct > choices need to be cached. With client-hints, any change to the > client-hints invalidate the cache. This is a significant difference. If > there are only two image resources to choose from it is technically > inferior to key on a much larger input parameter set. Further the client > can be smarter than the cache, and decide to scale down an image already on > hand to fit, or to get by with an existing image, rather then blindly > re-validating when hint parameters change. > See above. Don't enable it on your server if you don't want it. Opt out... err, I'm repeating myself. > > HTTP requests are scheduled by the preloader. > > You had claimed that the client hints header could have more useful state > than the browser would have on hand to decide which resource to load, and > you have been called out on this and have not addressed this? > ??? The header obviously can't have "more knowledge" than the browser, since the browser is the one creating the header - they have the same knowledge. What the header enables is for the server to assist the browser to pick the best resource. > > > I have already run the proposal by half a dozen CDN vendors - they're > all interested in leveraging it, assuming the browser is able to provide > the hint. > > They have a business interest in gaining more control and being able to > offer more value added services, even if it compromises the web. > > If you could have sold it to users to enhance their browsing experience > then I am sure you would have. > Great, then we're in agreement. Users want to pay to solve a problem, others are willing to offer the service. Everyone wins. If *you* don't want it on your site, then don't enable it. And by the way, you don't have to pay, you can install an open source solution. > > > That's not an argument, it's your opinion. If you don't want to leverage > HTTP negotiation, don't. > > With the client hints proposal users lose choice. A more inclusive > solution is likely available and would be preferred from the users > perspective. > false. ig P.S. Once again, we're going in circles.
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 12:37:22 UTC