W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [beacon] no limits, no retry, no batching, post only

From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:13:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOYaDdMvdn5N4g0GUwYfNG6jNQrPK+p_oRhbJdPtwnL8jPhMvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Here's the latest version:

I've removed "Document" as one of the options for the data parameter per
Jonas' feedback.


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:

> I agree with that too. I also felt the semantics are quite different at
> this point so overloading XHR doesn't seem like a good idea. We are talking
> about ignoring entity body, retrying request, persist after unload,
> delaying if necessary, allowing rejection if data exceeds some size - all
> too specific and different from XHR.
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:
>> > Please let me know if there are more comments. I think I've addressed
>> all
>> > comments raised so far.
>> So something that we discussed in the thread but I don't think we
>> really reached consensus on was whether to use sendBeacon or something
>> XHR based as syntax.
>> I explicitly want the beacon API to never send progress events to the
>> web page. That provides more freedom for the UA to delay sending the
>> beacon to a time when it makes sense (radio on but not much other
>> network traffic).
>> Hence I think we should stick to using the current sendBeacon syntax.
>> / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 21:13:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:37 UTC