- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:03:33 -0400
- To: Anthony van der Hoorn <anthony.vanderhoorn@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, "aheady@microsoft.com" <aheady@microsoft.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 18:13 -0400, Anthony van der Hoorn wrote: > To me, I can see value in both - would it be that much of a "cost" to pay > if both are captured and made available (as it would be handy to know both > and even be able to derive the header size)? But, personally, if I was > pushed, I would probably go with total request size. I think this would > fall inline with expectations - as I think that's what most dev tools show > and tells me the true size of the request if I care about the network > "cost". An other drawback to the total request size is that, if the response comes from the cache, the implementation may not have it. > Additionally (and I say this hoping it's not pushing my luck), I would like > to know the "over-the-wire" size vs the "actual" size (chrome dev tools > calls this "content" vs "size"). That way we can start flagging requests > that aren't compressed, see bandwidth cost of payload, etc. We'd need feedback from implementers here to know if it's possible. > Lastly (and I think this might be really pushing things), I would like to > know the status code associated with the request. This lets us flag > resources that aren't cached, have errors, etc. As far as I can tell, we discussed it back in 2011 [1], but didn't follow on it either. At the time, the conclusion was that it was possible to do it for same-origin resources at least. However, again, the response may come from the cache. Philippe [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Mar/0095.html
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 21:03:36 UTC