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

Re: [NavigationTiming] a couple questions

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:17:12 +0100
To: "Sylvain Hellegouarch" <sh@defuze.org>, "Tony Gentilcore" <tonyg@google.com>
Cc: "Zhiheng Wang" <zhihengw@google.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vl11myn664w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:32:29 +0100, Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com>  
wrote:
> - Hang it under console? The goal of the performance object is to
> expose information to the DOM in production. This is distinct from
> console which only interacts with the debugging console during
> development.

The problem we are facing today is that window.console is exposed to the  
DOM in production and that therefore sites started relying on it. This  
means we can use it for new features intended for the web as well (when it  
makes sense).


> - Will global performance conflict with many sites? We discussed
> allowing it to be replaceable so that if a site were to define var
> performance or window.performance, it would override the built-in.
> This would mitigate all but the most pathological conflicts.
> Unfortunately, I don't recall where we ended up on this discussion and
> can't find anything one way or the other in the spec.

If there is a viable alternative I would prefer to avoid putting new  
methods or attributes on the global object.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 11:17:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:13:56 GMT