- From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 05:58:05 -0700
- To: "Deng, Pan" <pan.deng@intel.com>
- Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOYaDdPE0XR_rndpO0OEiTw_6hzeTO+5HyA_7Yo=R4HjJ9N7oA@mail.gmail.com>
Yes I agree about:blank should not be included. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Deng, Pan <pan.deng@intel.com> wrote: > In latest Resource Timing draft [1], example 3 of section 4.2 says:**** > > *“…the user agent may fetch an **about:blank** resource for the **IFRAME**. > If at a later time the **src** attribute is changed dynamically via > script, the user agent may fetch the new URL resource for the **IFRAME**. > In this case, both the fetch of the **about:blank** resource, as well as > the fetch of the new URL would be included as PerformanceResourceTiming**” > * > > I noticed this example doesn’t exist in CR version [2], and was added from > June 27, 2012 draft [3], however I didn’t find a discussion about it.**** > > ** ** > > Why the initial “about:blank” item should be included? I can’t imagine it > is fetched from networking layer. I think it would make more sense if it is: > **** > > *“…In this case, the fetch of the new URL should be included as > PerformanceResourceTiming**”*.**** > > You idea? J**** > > ** ** > > [1] > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/ResourceTiming/Overview.html > **** > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/resource-timing/ **** > > [3] > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/9f30b23d0d99/specs/ResourceTiming/Overview.html > **** > > ** ** > > thanks**** > > Pan**** > > ** ** >
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 12:58:36 UTC