- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:37:52 -0800
- To: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote: > Seems like there's consensus on all the open issues for Beacon. Please > review the latest draftat: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/Beacon/Overview.html > > Jonas, looks like we want to allow beacon without a request body. > > boolean sendBeacon(DOMString url, (ArrayBufferView or Blob or DOMString or > FormData) data); > > Should I change it to: > > boolean sendBeacon(DOMString url, optional (ArrayBufferView or Blob or > DOMString or FormData) data); I think even better is boolean sendBeacon(DOMString url, optional (ArrayBufferView or Blob or DOMString or FormData)? data = null); That way passing <null> as body will not send any body. With the webidl in your proposal, explicitly passing <null> would send the string "null" I think. / Jonas > Arvind > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote: >> >> from Jonas: >> >> "We should define though that any CORS errors during the response >> >> should be ignored. If we do that, effectively the only effect of using >> >> CORS is that cross-origin beacons that use a content-type other than >> >> the ones above will require a preflight." >> >> >> >> Should I add this to the spec? Could you suggest exact language? >> > >> > I'll have to defer to Anne for how to do that. >> >> In general it seems a beacon does not give any indication whether it >> succeeded or failed. Therefore that a fetch with a request whose mode >> is CORS returns a network error seems unobservable and irrelevant. >> What am I missing? >> >> >> >> Also is this thread fully resolved? >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2014Jan/0003.html >> > >> > I think there's been general agreement yes. But I'll respond over there. >> >> If you define everything in terms of http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/ >> there is no way this could be ambiguous. >> >> >> -- >> http://annevankesteren.nl/ > >
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 07:38:49 UTC