Re: [minutes] Web Performance WG Teleconference #123 2014-03-05

On Mar 7, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 11:38 -0500, David Newton wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Tobin Titus <tobint@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> plh: Didn't we agree to drop postpone and go after lazyload.
>>> ... I think that was what we discussed at TPAC
>>> JatinderMann: I think you're right. We should review TPAC notes to
>>> verify.
>>> ... I think we said we should drop postpone for now and kill the CSS
>>> property.
>>> plh: We should update the action item title to match
>>> JatinderMann: We should open an action item to remove postpone from
>>> resource priorities.
>>> ... That brings us up to date on TPAC. Will likely want to open more
>>> action items.
>>> <plh> https://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/agenda
>>> <plh> close issue-8
>>> <trackbot> Closed issue-8.
>>> JatinderMann: We can likely close Issue-8
>> 
>> Are the TPAC notes available somewhere? I’m surprised by the decision
>> to remove `postpone` and would love to review the discussion.
> 
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Nov/0091.html
> 
> In particular,
> http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-webperf-minutes.html#item03
> 
> Philippe

Thank you Philippe! As far as I can tell, there was concern about a `postpone` CSS property, but no clear reason to remove the `postpone` attribute. Am I reading this wrong? Are there good reasons for dropping the attribute?

I’m coming at this from a responsive images point of view. Given a user browsing on a mobile connection with limited bandwidth, a `lazyload` attr would certainly help improve (apparent) load time, but it doesn’t have the overall bandwidth-, memory-, and battery-saving benefits of `postpone`.

Thanks