[whatwg] Application deployment

Peter Kasting pkasting at google.com
Wed Jul 30 01:27:47 PDT 2008

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Russell Leggett
<russell.leggett at gmail.com>wrote:

> That is a performance killer.
> I don't think it is as much of a performance killer as you say it is.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard connection limit is two.

The standard connection limit is 6, not 2, as of IE 8 and Fx 3.  I would be
very surprised if this came back down or was not adopted by all other
browser makers over the next year or two.

Furthermore, the connection limit applies only to resources off one host.
 Sites have for years gotten around this by sharding across hosts (
img1.foo.com, img2.foo.com, ...).

There are many reasons resources can cause slowdown on the web, but I don't
view this "archive" proposal as useful in solving them compared to existing
tactics.  Server sharding and higher connection limits solve the problem of
artificially low connection limits.  JS script references block further
parsing in most browsers; the correct solution to this, as Ian said, seems
like some variant of Safari's optimistic parser.  Referencing large numbers
of tiny images causes excessive image header bytes + TCP connection overhead
that can be reduced or eliminated with CSS spriting.

The only thing archives get you IMO is difficulty with caching algorithms,
annoyances rewriting URLs, potentially blocked parsing, and possibly
inefficient use of network bandwidth due to reduced parallelization.
 Archives remove the flexibility of a network stack to optimize
parallelization levels for the user's current connection type (not that I
think today's browsers actually do such a thing, at least not well; but it
is an area with potential gains).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080730/15601e7a/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list