Re: [ResourceTiming] initiator types

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:

> 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.


Actually, Image() creates an img element, so perhaps it already falls under
the localName clause.

On second thought, the current wording you have in the spec sounds good to
me. I don't see a problem with using "script" as the initiatorType for
XMLHttpRequests. No need to add any rules regarding JS constructor names.

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? ****
>>>
>>
>>
>