Re: [Beacon] Required Beacon-Age: handling. from Ilya Grigorik on 2014-08-18 (public-web-perf@w3.org from August 2014)

From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:51:08 -0700
To: Adam Barth <abarth@chromium.org>
Cc: Sigbjorn Finne <sof@opera.com>, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>, David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <CADXXVKqv37+yVO9h+nCuFffgSmJtpnURfdT4iE9MPe8uMcnJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Adam Barth <abarth@chromium.org> wrote:

> You don't need UA detection.  Just interpret the lack of a Beacon-Age
> header as zero.

Yes, until there is a bug and some UA omits it by accident (or
intentionally), at which point I'm back to UA detection: if X UA then no
delay, if Y UA then I don't trust the timestamp... at which point, I guess
I would need to move that detection into JS-land and pick the method that I
trust.

I'm ok either way, just trying to think of cases where reporting 0 is a
plus.

Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 17:52:15 UTC