|
|
|
|
|
by manigandham
1341 days ago
|
|
No. It is about excessive resources/bandwidth usage. The customer service response reply isn't great but the context itself is clear because this file is clearly not for displaying any part of the web presence of the easylist site. Again this is that "pedantic technicality" - why such a fuss when the actual issue is straightforward, and also clearly understood and reiterated by the easylist team themselves in the post? |
|
Then the policy would focus on that rather than micromanage the format of the data using those resources/bandwidth. Again: bytes are bytes.
> why such a fuss
Because a policy as nonsensical as "no non-HTML files allowed" artificially limits the usefulness of CloudFlare for precisely zero legitimate reason. I ask again: does wrapping a video in a blob of JavaScript fix the bandwidth issues associated with hosting videos? If I have a 10MB MP3 downloaded 1,000 times v. a 1MB HTML/CSS/JS static site downloaded 10,000 times, what difference does it make?