- From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:11:07 -0800
- To: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@gmail.com>
- Cc: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOYaDdMh_5CatUKLjCVOU1C45_A18qh-7r_ccBqexhJGQ=knbA@mail.gmail.com>
I looked through the archives for previous discussion on this, and I found only one thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Jul/0059.html I suppose we could add the size field in next revision. We'll keep track of this for Resource Timing v2. On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@gmail.com>wrote: > Nvm, missed the "same origin" part of the question. > > -christian > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Why do you say this poses no security risk? Byte size can reveal things >> like "is user logged in to site X", which is not something we should expose. >> >> -christian >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote: >> >>> 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 Wednesday, 30 January 2013 01:11:36 UTC