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

Re: About window.performance namespace

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:58:56 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimZ1WtOa2GhC7V6NAhyBC4LZtFmUC7sbVfVY4wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
Cc: Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com>, Patrick Meenan <pmeenan@webpagetest.org>, Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>, Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com> wrote:
> Hi, Jonas,
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com> wrote:
>> >    Thanks to all for chiming in with many perspectives! Given the
>> > imminent
>> > timing line let's make the call on this
>> > topic and move forward: NavigationTiming will use window.performance
>> > object,
>> > which itself is replaceable.
>> >    Here are the points we've covered so far to reach this decision:
>> >   - There is interest to keep the interface concise, which has its own
>> > advantage in the long run.
>> >   - Most of us agree that we should avoid the potential conflicts with
>> > existing pages. Having window.performance replaceable
>> >     address that.
>> >   - Probably a common practice, having window.performance replaceable
>> > could
>> > still confuse some. But so far there
>> >     doesn't seem to be any objection to that.
>> >   - There is some risk allowing developers to replace
>> > window.performance.
>> > But considering most objects/functions
>> >     are replaceable in ECMA scripts, protecting window.performance alone
>> > could be a half-way solution to integrity
>> >     of the collected. So best intentions are assumed.
>> >   - Less of an argument... but this is the current implementation
>> > adopted by
>> > IE and Chrome.
>>
>> I'm still not understanding this. As far as I can see only the last
>> point, which you are saying is "less of an argument", seems to be an
>> argument for using the name "performance".
>
>     Yes, it's not a deciding factor but still an argument in practice.
>
>>
>> I'll point out, yet again, that my question of why not using
>> "pagePerformance" or "performanceMetrics", still remains unanswered.
>
>     window.performance is short and terse so it bears more weight than
> others.
> And, when it's on billions of pages, every byte counts. :-)
> cheers,

So shortness is the main argument? Wouldn't "pagePerf" or
"perfMetrics" be better or as good then?

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 21:59:49 UTC

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