Comments on: Browser Performance Wishlist

By: Akhtar Asghar

Akhtar Asghar — Sat, 01 May 2010 21:28:05 +0000

argh where’s my markup ?

The above post looks daft, okay I’ll try to explain without the markup

instead of 100+ instances of

img src= images.mysite.com/images/ the-world.jpg

I’d have in the header

imgbase ref= mages.mysite.com/images/

and in the body

img src= the-world.jpg

By: Akhtar Asghar

Akhtar Asghar — Sat, 01 May 2010 21:19:56 +0000

I have over 100 images on my category pages, so something like base href would be nice for example

instead of 100+ instances per page of

I would have something like the following in the header

and in the body

That should reduce page bloat.

By: Brian Cardarella

Brian Cardarella — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:28:49 +0000

Can we add support for the other HTTP methods in here? I don’t know if this is a browser limitation or a HTML limitation.

By: codetiny

codetiny — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:35:15 +0000

remote debugging must be enabled core of browser. Also I couldnt see any performance criteria for media content.

By: Markus Isomaki

Markus Isomaki — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:40:34 +0000

SCTP is nice but impractical. It does not work through existing NATs or firewalls, which makes it virtually impossible to deploy.

By: fearphage

fearphage — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:53:50 +0000

Opera’s Dragonfly tool already offers remote debugging. It is also on the road map for Firebug 1.7.

By: Steven Roussey

Steven Roussey — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:08:12 +0000

One of things SPDY has going for it is that it is not http, and therefore does not have the weight of dealing with old implementation issues of various parties. Just look at why Mozilla won’t ship with pipelining enabled and you realize that starting with a clean slate has lots of advantages.

And dropping tcp would have some advantages too, sctp might do as a nice replacement, and it warms up better.

By: Steve Souders

Steve Souders — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:44:07 +0000

@Mark, Sergey, Brian: I've talked with many people who think we need better browser caching. I totally agree that we can measure how frequently users don't have resources cached (like the experiment I designed at Yahoo). But it's harder to determine why they don't have resources cached as much as we would expect. Are caches too small and resources are being pushed out? Are users clearing their caches? Is anti-virus software clearing their caches? None of these seem like a plausible explanation. Until we do more studies, I'm not convinced increasing cache size will make much difference. Anyone have data on this?

By: Shane Caraveo

Shane Caraveo — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:30:07 +0000

remote JS debugging: use DBGP, an open debugger protocol for dynamic languages, developed by myself (Shane Caraveo, ActiveState) and Derick Rethans (PHPs XDebug), and used by tons of IDEs and editors (Komodo, Eclipse, even vi). Komodo has had remote debugging via Firefox for a long time.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:48:06 +0000

Unassertive cache policies are definitely low hanging-fruit here. The web would be much faster if browsers (especially IE) just obeyed the caching headers we give them. Larger caches would also help. In my research, browsers are requesting resources over 100 times more than they should.