W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > December 2010

RE: About window.performance namespace

From: Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:52:15 +0000
To: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Message-ID: <1E1FF4102DEA7A40AF9CC342044ECE5D2E34435A@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Thanks Zhiheng, we want to solidify on this decision by the end of day Friday 12/17/2010 in order to get to Last Call for the Navigation Timing specification.

Also, merging some thoughts on a related thread. It would be great to have a more specific name for handShakeStart, sslHandShakeStart is appropriate.

Anderson and Nic
Internet Explorer

From: public-web-perf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-perf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Zhiheng Wang
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:57 PM
To: public-web-perf
Cc: Jonas Sicking; Sigbjørn Vik; Simon Pieters
Subject: About window.performance namespace

Hi, folks,

   In today's conf call, the group discussed the issue of using window.performance namespace. The following proposal was
brought up in a follow-up meeting this afternoon. It has been acknowledged by Anderson/Nic (IE) and Tony/James (Chrome)
and we would like to hear feedback from others as well.

     * NavigationTiming will use window.performance namespace.
     * window.performance will be replaceable
     * window.performance.timing and window.performance.navigation will be kept read-only.

   Having window.performance replaceable avoid breaking existing javascripts. Keeping the timing and navigation objects read-only
does not guarantee the integrity of timing attributes but makes forging these interfaces less trivial.

   Please share your thoughts.

Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 22:54:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:29 UTC