Comment #8 on issue 13505 by simon.bohlin: link rel prefetching should be implemented to reduce page load latency http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=13505
Issue 27111 is a related feature request. rel=prefetch, yes as long as network and memory isn't too filled. If headers forbid caching? Perhaps cache anyway, and expire when leaving current site and not going to the prefetch page. Mozilla also prefetches rel=next unless it has parameters, i.e. no prefetch of "list.php?page=2". When the current page forbids caching (pragma or short page expiry) then surely rel=next should not be prefetched. (A cacheable current page and a rel=next with parameters might actually be a good idea to prefetch?) What resources of a page pays off to prefetch? By looking at page load profiles of both optimized and average websites, the waterfall(s) start from the main document, then CSS-files. A page with many small images (=TABLE based designs) could prefetch images, especially since those pages aren't going to add their own rel=prefetch for the specific graphics files anytime soon. Perhaps use header Content-Range set to one or few TCP packets, where few packets = less risk of delays due to dropped packets. Long running prefetch connections can't be afforded, as dictated by Chrome's max-connection-count=5. Prefetch probably shouldn't go via the regular cache to avoid kicking out cached data which have provably been of use, and more so for rel=next than for rel=prefetch. -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue. You may adjust your issue notification preferences at: http://code.google.com/hosting/settings -- Automated mail from issue updates at http://crbug.com/ Subscription options: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-bugs
