Re:Add limits to amount of JavaScript that can be loaded by ...
by apalmer on Wednesday January 30, 2019 @02:57PM
(#19038759)
I think we already do this. Its built into the fabric of the web. Not sure why we are proposing arbitrary limits and additional user opt in for this.
Wether a website wants to be inefficient or has a good reason for having a lot of resources it impacts the speed with which the site loads. The slower the site loads the more users are going to abandon the site. Stats say by 2 seconds most users have abandoned a slow loading site. Caveat that if the user feels the site is really worth the wait, they will wait longer.
So seems everything in this proposal is already addressed...
Re:Add limits to amount of JavaScript that can be loaded by ...
by nicoburns on Wednesday January 30, 2019 @02:45PM
(#19038612)
> 1mb for a single page isn't enough?
What about single-page apps where the whole app is "a single page". With this proposal, even lazily loading the extra bits would hit the limit.
Re:Add limits to amount of JavaScript that can be loaded by ...
by krapp on Wednesday January 30, 2019 @03:28PM
(#19039089)
I strongly suspect the true purpose of this would be to make javascript unusable for all but the most trivial cases, and to train end users to fear it like a virus, or find its presence annoying, making it an anti-feature. Killing SPAs would probably be a feature in that case.
He suggests 1mb, personally I still think it is too much.
> How I, as a developer, make sure my website works everywhere?
1mb for a single page isn't enough?
> What with sites that use a lot of code but still work fast?
It's fast if the resources are near your device (CDN), most websites don't do that at all.