- From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:09:47 +0100
- To: public-web-perf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACj=BEgZyx=ddcziAy=RgqK=+e76SE7kOVF85eM+dmD5YtnmBg@mail.gmail.com>
I'm wondering if there's any reason the resource's byte-size & compressed byte-size were not added to the ResourceTiming API. The use cases I see for adding this information to the API would be: 1. Enabling Web apps access to the full information required to create complete waterfall charts or HAR files that are equivalent to the browser's own Web Inspector/developer tools. Current demos creating a waterfall chart [1] or HAR files [2] either ignore the file size altogether, or use the IE only property of "fileSize" on image resources. 2. Detecting compression issues using RUM scripts (text resources that were not GZIPed, automated image compression regressions). 3. Enabling Web applications to get a notion of the average download bandwidth each resource had. Even though such a measurement may not be accurate (because of slow-start, contention, packet losses, different hosts per resource, etc), it may be useful information either for RUM or for progressive enhancement purposes. Thanks! Yoav [1] http://calendar.perfplanet.com/2012/an-introduction-to-the-resource-timing-api/ [2] http://blog.trasatti.it/2012/12/measuring-the-speed-of-resource-loading-with-javascript-and-html5.html
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2013 14:10:17 UTC