Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] deliveryType (Resource Timing) (Issue #858)

There are many kinds of cache, yeah. In the context of `PerformanceResourceTiming` I think it's most natural to describe the HTTP cache (whether it has one layer or multiple), and that's what people usually seem to mean by "the cache" in this context.

Some caches (e.g., an image decode cache) probably don't make sense to describe as part of resource loading.

Some caches (e.g., a caching forward proxy, reverse proxy or CDN) are outside the user agent proper and I would think probably don't make sense to describe here (but server timing might be appropriate). If we did want to describe it in `deliveryType` in the future, I think it would be natural for it to have a different enumerator.

The service worker and preload caches are probably the two most potentially interesting cases I'm aware of. Consuming resources from the preload cache isn't currently exposed, and if it were to be (w3c/resource-timing#303), I think a separate enumerator would be justified and would be reasonably clear, since it's generally not described as a "cache" elsewhere in its API (`deliveryType: "preload"` or similar).

---

re. sustainability of bundling and caching, there doesn't seem to be enough detail there yet to strongly reason about its implications if adopted, but if it becomes necessary to obscure the cache state of certain resources I agree that similar masking might be applicable here. I would hope that at same-origin resources, at least, wouldn't require such masking.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/858#issuecomment-1662458191
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/858/1662458191@github.com>