Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding HTTP method to ResourceTiming API structure #373

Open
sohomdatta1 opened this issue Mar 22, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Adding HTTP method to ResourceTiming API structure #373

sohomdatta1 opened this issue Mar 22, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@sohomdatta1
Copy link

The ResourceTiming API structure doesn't currently give us insight into what HTTP method was used to fetch a specific resource and/or make a API call. It would be great if the HTTP method used to make a specific HTTP request could be added to the ResourceTiming structure.

The major usecase where I see this getting used (and from where this idea came from) is to debug cases where a POST request would have additional latency/overhead over a GET request or vice-versa.

@yoavweiss
Copy link
Contributor

^^ @nicjansma

@clelland
Copy link
Contributor

Let's add this to the agenda for the WG for discussion this week

@nicjansma
Copy link
Contributor

Yes this seems very useful for being able to segment the performance of URLs that are used with different methods. REST APIs come to mind here.

@nicjansma
Copy link
Contributor

For posterity, we had discussed this on the April 13th, 2023 W3C WebPerf Working Group call.

Notes @ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fIgfd7ONz-sES55qRFHQI_eQUnynnyX2Asrs-cwAQ_Q/edit#heading=h.nuc3bt9j96hk

Summary:

  • Useful to know whether a HTTP request was a GET/POST/etc from ResourceTiming, as they may have different performance characteristics
  • Question if this would be covered by CORS, or would need another opt-in
  • Next steps: Getting a security review from security folks at each vendor

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants