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

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

From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 00:09:26 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimAzRhAm1gMgN=H54whTQxrhx4HUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>
Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
The -beta- idea is just a bad idea, as was made clear in the discussion on
the blog post suggesting it. I don't see any reason to spend time worrying
about it at all.

- James
On Jun 3, 2011 12:04 AM, "Sigbjørn Vik" <sigbjorn@opera.com> wrote:
> 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 07:09:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 June 2011 07:09:53 GMT