W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2015

Re: "Packing on the Web" -- performance use cases / implications

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:56:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUa7xun-dV8pGDDCEV-SfZj-jUWQbW--81piGRN2SFBug@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:09 UTC