W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Timing API issues with wall-clock time

From: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:36:15 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=OKNBX-Wp_Z1w3soewV4moD+iLTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nic Jansma <Nic.Jansma@microsoft.com>
Cc: James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
   We can add a new section 4.7 for this. It would probably be non-normative
recommendation.

   Oh, yes, I am also in favor of Boris' proposal of having a wall-clock +
monotonic clock solution.

cheers,
Zhiheng

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Nic Jansma <Nic.Jansma@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  IE currently calculates the timestamps as Boris describes.
>
>
>
> We'd support a change in the spec to recommend this approach, though
> picking simple wording to describe it may be tricky.
>
>
>
> - Nic
>
>
>
> *From:* public-web-perf-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-web-perf-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *James Simonsen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2011 2:28 PM
> *To:* Boris Zbarsky
> *Cc:* public-web-perf@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Timing API issues with wall-clock time
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, an issue with monotonic clocks is that you can't really
> use them to record "the time right now" except in some sort of opaque
> timestamp format.  They're very good for measuring time intervals, of
> course.  Are people ok with exposing opaque timestamps (that can't
> necessarily be converted to wall-clock time, etc) to JS?
>
>
>
>  A few of us had a brief discussion about it at lunch today and everyone
> seemed to like it. People were using the terms "monotonic clock" and
> "document time."
>
>
>
> For the particular case of navigation timing one possibility is that the
> page load start is recorded as wall-clock epoch time and the other times
> reported by the interface are defined in terms of a monotonic clock
> measuring time elapsed from the page load start.  That would be
> API-compatible with the existing spec, I think, but ensure that the
> differences between the reported numbers actually correspond to elapsed
> durations.
>
>
>
> That should be pretty safe for Navigation Timing, since all of the times
> should be relatively close to the epoch time. I'm a little more concerned
> about Resource Timing and User Timing, particularly on long running apps
> like e-mail. The values returned by the API and the values returned by Date
> could diverge quite a bit. For the longer lasting APIs, I think we need to
> make it more clear we're using a monotonic clock. And it'd be nice to use
> the same solution for all 3 timing APIs.
>
>
>
> James
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 23:37:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 April 2011 23:37:01 GMT