Edit the list of possible initiatorType values.

[guohuideng2024]

Update the list.

Bug: #364

---

Preview | Diff

[guohuideng2024]

I made this edit mostly based on https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/PerformanceResourceTiming/initiatorType, Chromium and WPT test.

Decision of the values modified/added here is based on
#364 (comment)

Below is the list of things that are not obvious. And I need some guidance on some of them.

1. For the "body" value, it's used for the "background" attribute in "body" element, which is obsolete now. That's why there is no reference link to the current html standard.

I am not sure if the current text is appropriate, and I am not sure if I should include the "body" value in this list because this is obsolete now.

2. Looks like the "ping" replaced "a" and it's for the "ping" attribute only.

3. The link to "Early hints" is broken. I cannot find an exported reference to "early hint" on
   https://respec.org/xref/
   and I see the "fetch" standard is not refereeing it either. (see the third note on
   https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#fetching )

So I plan to submit a PR that adds a class="export" to the "Early hints" dfn in html spec. Is it a right move?

Thanks.

[guohuideng2024]

@noamr : I also filed a PR to fetch:
whatwg/fetch#1837

I would add you as a reviewer there but I don't have permission to add reviewers in the whatwg repo.

[guohuideng2024]

@noamr : You mentioned font is used by IFT, I think I should add font here?

From https://www.w3.org/TR/IFT/, I see the following text:

"This document was produced by the Web Fonts Working Group as a Working Draft using the Recommendation track. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation."

So it looks like it's not yet adopted and implemented. (No wonder I cannot find it in Chromium and WPT).
Should I simply say something like: font value --> downloaded using IFT technology?

One more consideration: if we report the "initiator type" from IFT, wouldn't something like IFT be better than font because it's more specific? And imagine if in the future there is a different technology font_delivered_by_apple used with font, then we won't be able to distinguish between font_delivered_by_apple and IFT

Thanks.

[noamr]

@noamr : You mentioned font is used by IFT, I think I should add font here?

From https://www.w3.org/TR/IFT/, I see the following text:

"This document was produced by the Web Fonts Working Group as a Working Draft using the Recommendation track. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation."

So it looks like it's not yet adopted and implemented. (No wonder I cannot find it in Chromium and WPT). Should I simply say something like: font value --> downloaded using IFT technology?

One more consideration: if we report the "initiator type" from IFT, wouldn't something like IFT be better than font because it's more specific? And imagine if in the future there is a different technology font_delivered_by_apple used with font, then we won't be able to distinguish between font_delivered_by_apple and IFT

Not exactly. The font is the "initiator" of the request. You access a font, and that font "initiates" an IFT request.

[guohuideng2024]

Sorry for the late update. Now this PR is ready for review.

I added some text to clarify between "font" and "css".

For the "Early-hint" reference, I actually filed PR to export it from html spec.
whatwg/html#11508
But for now I added it as localBiblio.

And I found out that I cannot use - in localBiblio name. I had to use _ instead.

[noamr]

"Note:" instead of "Another example is,"

[guohuideng2024]

Done.

[guohuideng2024]

Done

[noamr]

Looks good! see comment

[guohuideng2024]

In addition, per domenic@ 's suggestion at whatwg/html#11508,
I replaced the reference link to early hints with https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc8297.html
This change was made after the approval so I will wait until next Tuesday before I merge this PR.

Thanks.