W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [agenda] Web Performance WG Teleconference #125 Agenda 2014-02-12

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:37:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9H5kdyw_ZT0We-m2CX5ysgWex6q41CawR895-c900fiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:
> Seems like there's consensus on all the open issues for Beacon. Please
> review the latest draftat:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/Beacon/Overview.html
>
> Jonas, looks like we want to allow beacon without a request body.
>
> boolean sendBeacon(DOMString url, (ArrayBufferView or Blob or DOMString or
> FormData) data);
>
> Should I change it to:
>
> boolean sendBeacon(DOMString url, optional (ArrayBufferView or Blob or
> DOMString or FormData) data);

I think even better is

boolean sendBeacon(DOMString url, optional (ArrayBufferView or Blob or
DOMString or FormData)? data = null);

That way passing <null> as body will not send any body. With the
webidl in your proposal, explicitly passing <null> would send the
string "null" I think.

/ Jonas

> Arvind
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:
>> >> from Jonas:
>> >> "We should define though that any CORS errors during the response
>> >> should be ignored. If we do that, effectively the only effect of using
>> >> CORS is that cross-origin beacons that use a content-type other than
>> >> the ones above will require a preflight."
>> >>
>> >> Should I add this to the spec? Could you suggest exact language?
>> >
>> > I'll have to defer to Anne for how to do that.
>>
>> In general it seems a beacon does not give any indication whether it
>> succeeded or failed. Therefore that a fetch with a request whose mode
>> is CORS returns a network error seems unobservable and irrelevant.
>> What am I missing?
>>
>>
>> >> Also is this thread fully resolved?
>> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2014Jan/0003.html
>> >
>> > I think there's been general agreement yes. But I'll respond over there.
>>
>> If you define everything in terms of http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/
>> there is no way this could be ambiguous.
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 07:38:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:38 UTC