Hey Brian,
On 11.12.2017 00:10, Brian Wolff wrote:
Maybe not a hard no, but I would rate the probability
as somewhere around
1%.
If you really wanted to push this (with the understanding that its probably
not going anywhere) I would say make a report, comingup with a solid case
with a solid implementation plan, including:
* what is the fallback plan for non js users and users with old browsers
* what would the bandwidth saving be in typical usage on typical wikipedia
pages
* what is the server side latency on an uncached hit where we have to
generate a thumbnail for the request, compared to existing formats
*what is the client side latency to render with the polyfill compared to
native format. What happens during rendering? What about people using
old-generation cell phones with lackluster cpus? Is it in a separate worker
thread or does it stop the main js thread? What is the general affect to
the user during polyfil loading.
*combining server side latency, client side latency bandwidth difference,
etc what is the overall difference in loading time for the user on a
typical wikipedia page- and what is it for a (client side) cached hit vs
(server side i.e. thumb is already rendered) vs totally uncached where
thumbnail has to be converted on the fly.
I think that would be the minimum information required to convince people
to do this, and i doubt that that would be enough unless the numbers are
super good.
Thanks alot for this open feedback, Brian. I think about that. :)
Best regards
Ruben