On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:59 AM, David Benjamin <david...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigo...@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 :)
