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

Re: [Resource Timing] Monotonic Clock

From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:57:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpOFMtHpBhqAji+XoOEMoxd7SWgJ=xXE7P-O7tFDyytG=4_gA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Cc: James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
I think that would be good. When I was thinking about the Firefox
implementation, I was already assuming that the resource timings would
use the same clock as the root.

-christian

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The first sentence looks like a copy and paste issue from the Navigation
> Timing spec. It should be: “timing attributes are not skewed by adjustments
> to the system clock while fetching the resource.” I will update the spec.
>
>
>
> Good point. If you want to create a timeline of the entire page, requiring
> iframes resources to have the same monotonic clock as the root navigation
> would be best. I can update the spec to be clear on this point also.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jatinder
>
>
>
> From: public-web-perf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-perf-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of James Simonsen
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:35 PM
> To: public-web-perf
> Subject: [Resource Timing] Monotonic Clock
>
>
>
> I was reading through the Resource Timing spec again looking at the
> monotonic clock requirements. I had a couple of comments on it.
>
>
>
> First, it says that "timing attributes are not skewed by adjustments to the
> system clock during the navigation." We might not be navigating when
> resources load, but they should still use a monotonic clock referenced from
> the initial page load so that we can construct an accurate timeline.
>
>
>
> Also, what do we do about resources that load from iframes? Are they
> referenced from the iframe's navigation or from the root navigation? The
> latter seems most useful from my perspective, but maybe there are other
> concerns there.
>
>
>
> James
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 23:57:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:31 UTC