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

Re: [Resource Timing] User feedback and a modified proposal

From: Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 09:01:45 +0200
To: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vwhm47e441y844@id-c0735.oslo.osa>
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:40:59 +0200, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>  
wrote:

>> I take my words back regarding the prefix. The new vendor prefix is
>> -beta-, one prefix to rule them all. See
>> http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/03/css_vendor_pref_1.html
>> Should we be avant-garde here, and be the first to implement -beta-?
>> (I don't think any other specifications have picked up on this to
>> date.)
>
> What would the expected behavior be if two user agents use the same  
> initiator type name but they mean something slightly different? It would  
> seem that having a vendor prefix, instead of a beta prefix, might be  
> helpful in distinguishing the two.

I don't see that being the case. If user agent A has implemented  
-beta-compileTime, user agent B would probably choose to call their  
implementation something else if it is not compatible, for instance  
-beta-compilationTime or -beta-ESToMachineCode. -beta- allows multiple  
vendors to use the same name, but it doesn't make it a requirement.

I don't have any strong opinions on this, but I recalled the discussion,  
and the conclusion I linked to seems to make sense to me. I see little  
need to have that same discussion again on this mailing list, so as long  
as an informed decision is made, I'll be happy regardless of which  
conclusion is reached.

-- 
Sigbjørn Vik
Quality Assurance
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 07:01:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 June 2011 07:01:56 GMT