Re: [beacon] no limits, no retry, no batching, post only

I agree with that too. I also felt the semantics are quite different at
this point so overloading XHR doesn't seem like a good idea. We are talking
about ignoring entity body, retrying request, persist after unload,
delaying if necessary, allowing rejection if data exceeds some size - all
too specific and different from XHR.

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Arvind Jain <> wrote:
> > Please let me know if there are more comments. I think I've addressed all
> > comments raised so far.
> So something that we discussed in the thread but I don't think we
> really reached consensus on was whether to use sendBeacon or something
> XHR based as syntax.
> I explicitly want the beacon API to never send progress events to the
> web page. That provides more freedom for the UA to delay sending the
> beacon to a time when it makes sense (radio on but not much other
> network traffic).
> Hence I think we should stick to using the current sendBeacon syntax.
> / Jonas

Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 01:27:45 UTC