Re: negotiated protocol in Navigation and Resource Timing from Ilya Grigorik on 2014-10-20 (public-web-perf@w3.org from October 2014)

From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:37:49 -0700
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, Tobin Titus <tobint@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <CADXXVKqmUErdv6ypL3dgrSFZVidwcJguz_3KtGJShNvcaSGnuw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
> wrote:
> > Ah, I always assumed we'd expose both, but you're right, the
> functionality
> > we've discussed previously is all on Request... Hmm, will have to noodle
> on
> > this one some more. In the meantime, this is a good argument for why
> > "protocol" + {transfer, decoded}Sizes should, in fact, be exposed via
> NT/RT.
>
> Note that given https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#api the term "protocol"
> is unfortunately somewhat intertwined with "scheme" for many web
> developers. If we could expose it as "transport" or some such I think
> that would be clearer.


Good point.

All: any objections to s/protocol/transport/ ?

ig

Received on Monday, 20 October 2014 17:38:57 UTC