Re: Adding protocol information to Resource Timing

The server that serves the resource knows which protocol it used to serve
the resource.

In case this is where you're going... The thing I want to avoid is using
the hundreds of millions of clients on the web as a back channel for
relaying information from the resource's server back to the main document's
server.

James


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> Sorry, I'm less familiar here. Can someone clarify which server knows what?
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:
> > I agree with James. There's the case where RUM collection is done by a
> third
> > party but even there, this info could be collected outside of the
> resource
> > timing API.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I can't speak for everyone, but my opinion is that Resource Timing
> should
> >> not repeat information that the server already knows. You should be
> able to
> >> record the protocol on the server side.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, McCall, Mike <mmccall@akamai.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> After some internal discussions, a colleague recently started a
> >>> thread[1] on the spdy-dev mailing list, asking about having an
> interface
> >>> for developers to leverage to determine whether or not a web page
> >>> resource
> >>> was fetched via SPDY (or in the future, HTTP 2.0).
> >>>
> >>> Since the Resource Timing specification already enumerates the
> resources
> >>> for a
> >>> given page, it seems like it would make sense to also include which
> >>> protocol was used to fetch a given resource.
> >>>
> >>> What does the group think?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> 1.
> >>>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/spdy-dev/ERaEDaTnt7w
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>