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

+jonas

I have uploaded a new draft to not add Beacon-Age if age is zero.

https://w3c.github.io/web-performance/specs/Beacon/Overview.html#sec-processing-model

Arvind

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Sigbjorn Finne <sof@opera.com> wrote:
> 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 Saturday, 23 August 2014 14:04:56 UTC