Re: [ResourceTiming] initiator types

I think it's mainly for XMLHttpRequest. I think the idea is those should
show up as "XMLHttpRequest" instead of "script".

James

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  I have made the spec update to include this definition of initiatorType.
> However, I didn’t fully understand the use case for including a JavaScript
> object’s constructor as a initiatorType. Can you give an example of the use
> case you had in mind?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> JAtinder****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ojan@google.com [mailto:ojan@google.com] *On Behalf Of *Ojan Vafai
> *Sent:* Friday, June 08, 2012 12:10 PM
> *To:* Jatinder Mann
> *Cc:* James Simonsen; public-web-perf@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ResourceTiming] initiator types****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
> > For instance, we're assuming the app is predominately HTML. However, if
> > it was mostly SVG, then it's not helpful for us to clump all the SVG
> elements
> > into one bucket.****
>
> I think that is fair feedback. Considering the proposed change won't
> substantially change a developers ability to sort and will allow better
> sorting of SVG content, I agree to making a change here. Is there any
> feedback on the proposed change Ojan had suggested below? If not, I will
> update the spec to match this behavior.****
>
>
> "If the initiator is an element, the initiatorType is the element's
> localname. If the initiator is a JavaScript object, the initiatorType is
> the name of the object's constructor. Resources downloaded via CSS url() or
> @import would be have the "link" or "style" initiatorType depending on
> which element the CSS was loaded from."****
>
> ** **
>
> Sounds like there's no objections. Mind updating the spec? ****
>