On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Steve Souders <st...@souders.org> wrote:
> I like the option of putting the manifest in the HTML. That was the main > suggestion I was going to make. You don't *have* to do it, but if you really > care about performance you could choose to do it. > > James mentions: "The page-specific resources end up getting blocked behind > all of the manifest downloads." > > I would expect that if I have: > <script src="a.js"></script> > <script src="b.js"></script> > <link rel="resource-package" type="application/zip" > href="site-resources.zip" /> > > The browser should start downloading a.js and b.js before > site-resources.zip. Therefore, as a developer, if I have page-specific > resources, I have some ability to get those downloading before the > manifest-blocking issue of resource packages. > I'm not totally clear on how this works today, so this might be groundless, but doesn't this present a potential problem? a.js gets included early in the page, the browser finishes loading it, it starts getting used, and then the browser encounters a resource bundle that contains a different a.js. I can also imagine scripts doing a document.write that adds a link to a resource bundle, causing similar potential issues with various already-loaded resources. PK
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev