- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:23:19 -0800
- To: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
- Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote: > > 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. The byte size and the compressed byte size can't be exposed for cross-origin loads. Other than that I don't see any security issues with this. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2013 23:24:18 UTC