- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:56:06 -0800
- To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
- Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnotting@akamai.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
On 20 January 2015 at 14:15, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I like the idea, but I keep being told by people here that this whole >> "packaging for the web" thing is not a performance feature, but a >> usability one. This rather emphatically establishes it as a >> performance feature. > > > Martin, are you commenting on the original or the new proposal that removes > payloads from the package? FWIW, I think the new proposal (just the URLs of > resources, no payloads), removes the performance concerns and defers them to > the transport layer (where they belong)... which leaves us with just > usability - e.g. a single URL for sharing/distribution of some bundle of > files. I refer to the new suggestion. This new proposal is an incomplete replacement for the incumbent proposal. >From discussions at Mozilla, the primary advantage of packaging was the usability issue. In fact, there seems to be a moderate amount of antipathy toward addressing performance problems using bundling. For one, bundling encourages patterns we've been actively discouraging. Your and Alex's proposal removes some of those concerns, which makes it a definite improvement. That's not an endorsement though.
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 23:56:34 UTC