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 <igrigo...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
