- From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:39:01 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACj=BEgp2dX-UTj1fi+xfZZ2O63fSKV0AZUwwK6kjWqwvkx9rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Since it poses no security risk and can be extremely useful, can byte size information be added to same origin resources in a future version of the Resource Timing API? Thanks, Yoav On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > 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 Tuesday, 29 January 2013 23:39:28 UTC