- From: James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:20:21 -0700
- To: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPVJQi=qaPjjbyMqret1kFGo92UZPSqr=Atu_bGRZCYn_=4iVA@mail.gmail.com>
I agree that seems like the desired behavior and that we need to say that more clearly. Should we totally change the processing model? For instance: 1. If the resource is fetched from the network, log it. 2. If it's fetched from a local cache, and the resource hasn't been seen before, log it and record it in a "set of seen resources." 3. If it's fetched from a local cache, and the resource is already in the "set of seen resources," abort these steps. Obviously, I wouldn't expect anyone to actually implement that set, but it at least makes the processing model convey what we want. James On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net> wrote: > I seem to remember "networking layer cache" being somewhat intentionally > left vague, as we figured different UAs would have various caches and we > didn't want to pigeon hole what it meant. > > Outside of what the phrase "networking layer cache" means, the intent was > to include all resources included in the page, regardless of whether a > request went out over the network to get them. In this case, site.js is > included statically in webpagetest.org's HTML: > > <script type="text/javascript" src=" > http://cdn.webpagetest.org/js/site.js?v=28"></script> > > I would expect/hope site.js would be included as a PerformanceEntry in the > PerformanceTimeline, even if it was "cached" from the previous page load. > It's load time would be near 0, since it was loaded from whatever caches > the UA has. > > The wording around "networking layer cache" could certainly be better > explained, but I'm not sure how... > > - Nichttp://nicj.net/ > @NicJ > > On 4/12/2013 6:54 PM, William Chan (ιζΊζ) wrote: > > I think "network layer cache" should be redefined in such a way to make > Blink's behavior incompliant. The Blink memory cache is just another cache > in the cache hierarchy. > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:40 PM, James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>wrote: > >> The Resource Timing spec says: >> >> "Resources that are retrieved from the user agent's networking layer >> cache must be included as PerformanceResourceTiming objects in the >> Performance Timeline." >> >> What exactly constitutes a "networking layer cache?" Blink's memory >> cache seems to behave differently than IE10's. When navigating pages on the >> same site, Blink uses the "in-memory cache" and reuses subresources without >> fetching. That means we don't report Resource Timing for these resources. >> IE10 seems to always report resources in the same circumstances. >> >> To try it out, visit webpagetest.org. Note the "site.js loaded in x >> milliseconds" at the bottom of the page. Browse to the "About" page on >> webpagetest.org. That message disappears on Chrome, it shows a new value >> on IE10. >> >> Are we both compliant in our own ways? Or do we need to better define >> "network layer cache?" >> >> James >> > > >
Received on Saturday, 13 April 2013 00:20:49 UTC