81–90 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this faster? More DNS requests, more TCP connections. At first this is purely slower.
Browsers used to/still do max number of connections per domain. Adding more domains allows you to do more concurrent requests.
(googler here, but this is my opinion) I think there's a big abstraction gap between what we use domains for and what they were supposed to be used for, in a way that we shouldn't assume any ownership only based on the domain itself. For instance you can have a number of sites that use separate domains but are owned by the same entity (N domains for 1 party). You could also have the same base domain being used for se…
>Sometimes I wonder how the web got here with the amount of kludge that we have to carry. Really? Um, MS led the way with IE6 and all of the baggage they brought. Google took the mantle with Chrome. Ultimately, it is the browser vendors and their "interpretations" on how to handle things. Rather than working with the governing bodies (yes, they are slow), they forged ahead with their own implementations and forced ev…
But I'm sure they'll say it's to lake shared login policies easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Sometimes I wonder how the web got here with the amount of kludge that we have to carry. Really? Um, MS led the way with IE6 and all of the baggage they brought. Google took the mantle with Chrome. Ultimately, it is the browser vendors and their "interpretations" on how to handle things. Rather than working with the governing bodies (yes, they are slow), they forged ahead with their own implementations and forced ev…
The standard and governing bodies has no right to demand anything. The internet is not a democracy. If they want something put the money where their mouth is. Until W3C ships their own browser engine and gets it into the hands of customers, relevance is nothing more than a nice-to-have.
The real question, I suppose, is whether the people who interact with the W3C/WHATWG/etc. have decision-making power within the organizations they nominally represent. If not, then these bodies are kind of like the UN: nominally a place for treaties to be made, but in practice a place for ambassadors to glad-hand one-another while their leaders ignore the decisions they make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Browsers used to/still do max number of connections per domain. Adding more domains allows you to do more concurrent requests.
With HTTPS you have to handshake for the first connection on each domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't any different than most of the internet standard development. "Rough consensus and running code". Most of the internet-drafts and RFCs start out life as prototype implementations, instead of writing specs first, experimental prototypes are developed, and the spec is extracted out of the winners. People are acting like internet and web specs start life as a standards doc, it's iterated on until finalized, a…
The difference is Chrome moves ahead anyway. This is why I'm calling it "standards-washing" -- if you take away the RFC it's no different from the browser wars era or Apple's proprietary CSS extensions for Safari back in the day. How the standards process is supposed to work is something like this: 1. Someone creates a rough proposal. Discussion happens. 2. Someone creates a proof of concept toy implementation. Discu…
That's not to say chrome isn't busing their market share. Even if there were more players though, it's a matter of Google gets MS/Apple/Mozilla to agree and nothing else really changes.
(googler here, but this is my opinion) I think there's a big abstraction gap between what we use domains for and what they were supposed to be used for, in a way that we shouldn't assume any ownership only based on the domain itself. For instance you can have a number of sites that use separate domains but are owned by the same entity (N domains for 1 party). You could also have the same base domain being used for se…
You call the current policy ambiguous, but the proposal wouldn't even ensure that all browsers block or allow the same sets of domains.
Anyway, I am aware that people use multiple domains on the most diverse ways. But it's important to have the technical behavior simple and predictable, and if Google doesn't like the consequences of the way they decided to organize their domains, well, it's their problem for them to fix, not a reason to push complicated unreliable standards on everybody.
From "Don't be evil." to "Are we the baddies ?" in less than a decade - most impressive !
(googler here, but this is my opinion) I think there's a big abstraction gap between what we use domains for and what they were supposed to be used for, in a way that we shouldn't assume any ownership only based on the domain itself. For instance you can have a number of sites that use separate domains but are owned by the same entity (N domains for 1 party). You could also have the same base domain being used for se…
>Sometimes I wonder how the web got here with the amount of kludge that we have to carry. Really? Um, MS led the way with IE6 and all of the baggage they brought. Google took the mantle with Chrome. Ultimately, it is the browser vendors and their "interpretations" on how to handle things. Rather than working with the governing bodies (yes, they are slow), they forged ahead with their own implementations and forced ev…
The difference between nice and awful, of course, is when developers and vendors treat such features as a given without providing graceful degradation (or progressive enhancement, if you prefer) for users of other browsers.