#1014: Document-Policy: expect-no-linked-resources
Discussions
Discussed
Jan 27, 2025 (See Github)
Jeffrey: mostly for pretty large orgs creating e.g. search result pages that don't link out... you can get parsing to go a bit faster if browser knows not to look for links.
Yves: it's just links or also embedded links?
Jeffrey: It's about the prefetch scanner... Scans the whole doc quickly and then starts doing the prefetching. If you don't prefetch you do everything a bit faster. Some entities have explicitly asked to turn off the prefetch scanner ... due to legal issues. The designers don't want it to be used for that...
Peter: I envision problems with preload scanner fetching links... part of me says "good idea" but another part gets annoyed at all these optimization knobs... that to me feels very implementation specific... optimization should be transparent... users (develoeprs) shouldn't have to care about them...
Dan: is this chrome specific?
Jeffrey: I think it also helps webkit... but gecko doesn't do prefetching.
Jeffrey: arg against: you're only going to be confident about turning off preload scanner.. if you know you're not going to have these kinds of links. We shouldn't be adding complexity only to solve the largest organizations...
Jeffrey: the use case is on the open web.
Peter: I like the notion of not prefetching until you have consent... I don't like adding a feature that only helps ~3 companies... but if it's a lot of traffic then...
Jeffrey: our review is: there are pros and cons... not against it, but also problems. So satisfied with concerns?
Dan: is it a foot gun?
Peter: would only hurt performance... so it would stop things being fetched... Work around would be don't put the links in.
Jeffrey: this feature is explcitly not for the "don't link until consent"
Peter: should that feature be handled by a different tech?
Dan: where is this happening?
Jeffrey: WICG
<blockquote> Thanks for sending this our way. The explainer is clear and we understand the articulaed user need. Our overall feedback is that we don't have strong concerns about it, but we are worried about adding complexity to the web platform in order to only support a very small number of web sites. This is aligned with our "[prefer simple solutions](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#simplicity)" design principle. A question on venue: Will this work eventually go the web performance working group? This feels like a performance optimization and so should be aligned with the work there. In general you should have a plan for where this work goes after WICG (assuming you intend to take it to WICG). </blockquote> Comment by @torgo Jan 27, 2025 (See Github)
Thanks for sending this our way. The explainer is clear and we understand the articulated user need. Our overall feedback is that we don't have strong concerns about it, but we are worried about adding complexity to the web platform in order to only support a very small number of web sites. This is aligned with our "prefer simple solutions" design principle. A question on venue: Will this work eventually go the web performance working group? This feels like a performance optimization and so should be aligned with the work there. In general you should have a plan for where this work goes after WICG (assuming you intend to take it to WICG).
Discussed
Feb 3, 2025 (See Github)
Jeffrey: propose we close this as "satisfied with concerns" - we found pros and cons... I think we said the useful thing we can say.
Dan: I agree - let's try to close it at the plenary.
Comment by @alexnj Feb 3, 2025 (See Github)
Thanks for the review!
This feature was developed in consultation with W3 Performance Working group early on. On Aug 29, 2024 the first iteration, Prefer-No-Speculative-Parsing
header was presented at PerfWG. The forum recommended to re-specify as a Document-Policy
hint to make the signal more reusable in future along with numerous other feedback, and the current version incorporates all of that. Post WICG proposal, the plan is to integrate into the HTML standard via open PR https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10718.
Discussed
Feb 10, 2025 (See Github)
Jeffrey: we didn't have concerns - I think it's ready to close... suggested text at plenary last week... we didn't close it.
jeffrey to close as satisfied with concerns - concern bring the small number of web sites that would use this
Comment by @jyasskin Feb 10, 2025 (See Github)
We're happy to see that this is being discussed by WebPerf. We're concerned about the small number of websites that seem likely to be able to use this, but that's balanced by the large number of users who could benefit. Thanks for bringing it to us.
OpenedNov 14, 2024
こんにちは TAG-さん!
I'm requesting a TAG review of
expect-no-linked-resources
Document-Policy.User Agents have implemented speculative parsing of HTML to speculatively fetch resources that are present in the HTML markup, to speed up page loading. For the vast majority of pages on the Web that have resources declared in the HTML markup, the optimization is beneficial and the cost paid in determining such resources is a sound tradeoff. However, the following scenarios might result in a sub-optimal performance tradeoff vs. the explicit time spent parsing HTML for determining sub resources to fetch:
This proposal introduces a configuration point in Document Policy expect-no-linked-resources to explicitly state to the User Agent that it may choose to optimize out the time spent in such linked resource determination.
Further details:
You should also know that:
Prefer-No-Speculative-Parsing
that directly tried to control the speculative parser behavior. After consulting W3PerfWG, the header was renamed intoexpect-no-linked-resources
and repositioned as a Document-Policy configuration point, to avoid controlling the scanner behavior directly, and to create a reusable signal that might benefit more use cases.