Re: negotiated protocol in Navigation and Resource Timing

Well, this is like resource / representation; many developers don't need a lot of precision when choosing a term, but if they choose the wrong one, it makes things messy.

Most people working at this level understand that there can be a difference between "scheme" and "protocol." I don't know if introducing "transport" is helpful, since that literally means "TCP or UDP?".

How about "protocolID"?


> On 21 Oct 2014, at 4:37 am, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote:
> > Ah, I always assumed we'd expose both, but you're right, the functionality
> > we've discussed previously is all on Request... Hmm, will have to noodle on
> > this one some more. In the meantime, this is a good argument for why
> > "protocol" + {transfer, decoded}Sizes should, in fact, be exposed via NT/RT.
> 
> Note that given https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#api the term "protocol"
> is unfortunately somewhat intertwined with "scheme" for many web
> developers. If we could expose it as "transport" or some such I think
> that would be clearer.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> All: any objections to s/protocol/transport/ ?
> 
> ig
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2014 01:15:20 UTC