3 ms·
The actual URL for the informative blog post is this: http://danwebb.net/2011/5/28/it-is-about-the-hashbangs http://danwebb.net/2011/5/28/it-is-about-the-hashba
by Nitramp 15y ago
The actual URL for the informative blog post is this: http://danwebb.net/2011/5/28/it-is-about-the-hashbangs http://danwebb.net/2011/5/28/it-is-about-the-hashbangs
The linked blog post only contains some relatively meaningless Twitter messages and the hyperlink as text, not as an actual link.
One of the things the post doesn't mention (it's sort of implicit in "going under the radar") is that with hash bangs, every request has double the round trip time to retrieve the initial data being displayed, as the server cannot know what data the client wants to retrieve. This makes a lot of nifty performance optimizations impossible.
- wmf 15y agoOnly inter-site links incur the double round trip (and in NewTwitter's case, serious load time); intra-site links should be faster.
- sirclueless 15y ago"intra-site links should be faster" Why? With proper caching, all you need is the new content. Which possibly entails a few KB of HTML boilerplate and a few milliseconds for the browser to render it, but the round trip is the lengthy part and you get that either way. The only thing hashbangs get you is a prettier transition.
- Lazare 15y agoNo. That link is to an OLD blog post explaining why Dan Webb (and many other people) think hashbangs are bad idea. The actual news here is that Twitter is moving away from them, which is very new and welcome news. That link is only useful for general background on the hashbang argument; it's otherwise irrelevant.