- From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 11:41:55 -0700
- To: "Deng, Pan" <pan.deng@intel.com>
- Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOYaDdNMHee-nLp+qmsMYXx6-hgqv5YZK8SSsubas3c0uJxzLg@mail.gmail.com>
I've fixed the example in the spec. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote: > 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 18:42:23 UTC