Maybe i'm dumb, but I really don't understand the point of this post.
Why even make it "reactive"? Just make your site static server-rendered pages? Or just static pages. Is it because additional-content-loading is something users expect?
"Write your site in plain javascript and html. Don't use a framework. Write some minimal css. Bamo. Well under 128kb." ???
at least in this case one of the ideas seemed to be that if they did an ajax load of the middle section of the page, they could skip sending the fixed elements (header and footer) over the network repeatedly
To be fair, an iframe would accomplish that too, but the loaded content would have its own html header that adds to the amount of kilobytes used. So maybe that's the reason.
Comments
Maybe i'm dumb, but I really don't understand the point of this post.
Why even make it "reactive"? Just make your site static server-rendered pages? Or just static pages. Is it because additional-content-loading is something users expect?
"Write your site in plain javascript and html. Don't use a framework. Write some minimal css. Bamo. Well under 128kb." ???
at least in this case one of the ideas seemed to be that if they did an ajax load of the middle section of the page, they could skip sending the fixed elements (header and footer) over the network repeatedly
To be fair, an iframe would accomplish that too, but the loaded content would have its own html header that adds to the amount of kilobytes used. So maybe that's the reason.