igrigorik
commented
7 years ago We did discuss the use case of limiting number of consumed bytes — e.g. at most X KB of Javascript — regardless of where they come from (cache or network), which is why we went with "content size".. I'm OK with excluding that use case if we think it's orthogonal and better tackled elsewhere, but want to make sure that we're all on the same page. If memory serves, I think Ojan was interested in this angle.
If we do scope it down.. "Network Policy" is very broad, which may be a good thing, if we want to expand what it controls in the future? Alternatively, perhaps "download policy" is closer to what we're tackling here?
jkarlin
ojanvafai
Content Size Policy conflates responses from the network and responses from cache/cachestorage/indexeddb/etc. These are really separate resources (network and storage) and can be treated individually with their own policies. Sites are likely are more interested in network policy (as network bytes cost users money and bandwidth is often severely constrained) than storage policy (in fact, we want to encourage cache usage), so I propose that we rename this repo to network policy and consider a storage policy down the road.
What do you think? If it doesn't make sense to rename this repo and we want to leave the original content size policy here, I can start a new repo.