Re: [Beacon] Required Beacon-Age: handling.

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Sigbjorn Finne <> wrote:

> Thanks much for clarifying. For implementations that don't delay
> initiation (I know of none that do, but perhaps there are), this would
> amount to "Beacon-Age: 0" for all practical purposes. Which brings up the
> second question raised initially - what benefit does this bring?

Initial implementations don't delay, but I think we should (*strongly*)
encourage this UA behavior - energy savings on mobile, etc. To make things
easier in the long run, we should also make it clear to analytics vendors,
etc, that this is the intended behavior... Hence the header, even if its
"0" today.

That said, I'm torn on the "Beacon-Age: 0". On the one hand, saved bytes
are good, but I do think it could make things a bit more difficult.. If
some UA decides to skip the header (bug or otherwise), then as a developer
I have to resort to UA detection (ugh) to winnow out valid vs. invalid
cases. A guaranteed header makes things much easier.


Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 17:27:39 UTC