• barsoap
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why would the URL change?

    It won’t share js libraries and fonts and whatnot cross-site but compared to a single image that should be negligible. At least if you don’t pull in gazillions of superfluous dependencies and don’t even run dead code elimination over them. And anyway that’s more bandwith usage between user and CDN, not user and you.

    Also I already said that it’s insanity. But it would work.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because you’re not using a CDN URL everyone else is.

      Savings are massive for the user. If you don’t care about your users, please stop doing anything development related.

      • barsoap
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know what’s faster than a CDN? Vanilla js.

        And how often do I have to repeat that it’s insanity? It’s just that user network traffic doesn’t even come close to the top of reasons why it’s a bad idea.

          • barsoap
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I wasn’t the one advocating to outlaw cross-site everything. I only said that it could be made to work… not well, but still. Also that it’s a bad idea. Do you disagree with that?

            But yes I’m also insane how could you tell.