Re: [ResourceTiming] initiator types

Right. That's all I had in mind there. I suppose, by this definite it would
also apply to Image(), which also seems fine to me.


On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM, James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>wrote:

> 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? ****
>>
>
>