On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl>
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigo...@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
