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

Re: Support for page/resource size

From: Hiroshi Kawada <kawada.hirosi@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:12:40 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMK1dyMo_n6324-nSjLfuV7Ljdib3iVysm53x+6wg+H_aNfqWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: bizzbyster@gmail.com
Cc: Anthony van der Hoorn <anthony.vanderhoorn@gmail.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, "aheady@microsoft.com" <aheady@microsoft.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>

It's good. I really want to know page/resources size.
Does the user agent use the HTTP Header's content-length to that value?
What's the value, when download is failed? It's really important.


2014-07-10 22:57 GMT+09:00 <bizzbyster@gmail.com>:

> +1 the need for resource sizes.
> Beyond this, why not just include everything in the HAR specification(
> http://www.softwareishard.com/blog/har-12-spec/)  so we can generate
> waterfalls and debug performance issues with the current HAR-based toolset?
> Thanks,
> Peter
> On Jul 9, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Anthony van der Hoorn <
> anthony.vanderhoorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the response!
> 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".
> 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.
> 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.
> Cheers
> Anthony
> On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 18:43 -0400, Anthony van der Hoorn wrote:
>> > Hi guys
>> >
>> > I'm new to the way that this group works, so if there is a better way to
>> > approach this please let me know.
>> >
>> > I see that the v2 specs for NavigationTiming and ResourceTiming are in
>> > progress and I'm interested in knowing whether there has been any
>> > consideration to including the size of the page/resource in the API?
>> >
>> > I work on profiling/debugging tools, and the timing information is
>> great,
>> > but it would be amazing if we could start pulling together a profile of
>> the
>> > weight of the page.
>> >
>> > I guess other things come into play when starting to go in this
>> direction
>> > (like status codes, from cache, etc) but just wanted to know if anyone
>> is
>> > thinking about this.
>> We considered it [1] but didn't make enough progress despite agreement.
>> While trying to write a proposal, I realize that we have two different
>> byte sizes that could be returned:
>> 1. the byte size of the response
>> 2. the byte size of the response's body
>> The first one has the advantage that, for those who want to use
>> heuristic to determine the bandwidth, having the size of the server
>> response would be more accurate.
>> Which one can we or do we provide?
>> Philippe
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 14:49:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:39 UTC