|
|
|
|
|
|
by striking
4143 days ago
|
|
|
Okay. Fair enough. I concede that efficiency is important and that SPDY / HTTP/2 can improve upon it. But I don't believe that this is worth the hype because the exposed featureset is otherwise tiny. Efficiency is cool, yes, but I'm personally waiting until HTTP/3 fixes the other wrong things with the Internet before I implement anything. I think the amount of effort that goes into this is not worth the result. Why include tons of small resources on your page if they're not necessary? Why revamp a protocol entirely if all you have to do is stop including tons of small resources? |
|
|
Great, I appreciate you recognize this.
> Why include tons of small resources on your page if they're not necessary?
But it _is_ necessary. In every single of the examples I gave in my reply to dlubarov, it is necessary:
- There are 100+ small images, icons, etc and all are displayed on the nytimes.com homepage.
- All of the thumbnail pictures of ebay items on a listing are displayed to the user.
- The 50+ maps tiles downloaded when browsing Google Maps are all necessary.
- Etc
You seem to fail to realize that in 2015, not every web page can be dumbed down to a blob of static HTML and no more than 2-3 images. The modern web is complex. We needed a protocol that can serve it efficiently.