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

Den 18.08.2014 20:07, skreiv Ilya Grigorik:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:59 AM, David Benjamin <>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Ilya Grigorik <>
>> 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?


Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 11:59:47 UTC