- From: Sigbjorn Finne <sof@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:59:07 +0200
- To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
- CC: Adam Barth <abarth@chromium.org>, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Den 18.08.2014 20:07, skreiv Ilya Grigorik: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:59 AM, David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Firefox appears to already ship sendBeacon without the Beacon-Age header >> anyway. (I imagine their implementation predates the header.) >> > > Yes, but they landed a fix for that since and first shipped version had no > delay. But your point still stands. > > tl;dr: I'm ok with omitting it. Just trying to think of cases where we > might regret this decision later :) > If the requirement is that an implementation is only allowed to include "Beacon-Age: N" for N > 0, that might reduce your concerns? --sigbjorn
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 11:59:47 UTC