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

Re: [agenda] Web Performance WG Teleconference #26 Agenda 2011-03-29

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:49:44 +0300
Message-ID: <4D9326E8.9000006@helsinki.fi>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On 03/30/2011 02:53 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> Regrets, since I'll be on my way to the airport.
>
> For your agenda next week:
>
> - Moving Navigation Timing to Proposed Recommendation
>
> as part of that,
> - you still need to answer Olli's comments and we should try to get a
> message from him that he is satisfied with our answer.

The change to TYPE_NAVIGATE looks ok, except a minor nit:
based on how TYPE_NAVIGATE is now specified, history.back()/.forward()
would end up using TYPE_NAVIGATE. Saying "other than the
location.reload() mothod." is not enough. And s/mothod/method/

I'm still not happy with
"Some user agents maintain the DOM structure of the document in memory 
during navigation operations such as forward and backward. In those 
cases, the window.performance.timing and window.performance.navigation 
objects must not be altered during the navigation."
but since everyone else seems to think that updating .type etc. when
back/forward bfcached document isn't expected, I can live with that.
(It is just a bit surprising that one type of navigation is ignored.
  And it would be good to update the description of TYPE_BACK_FORWARD
  that not all 'history traversal' end up to use type TYPE_BACK_FORWARD)

And related to that
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/file/fb6cbccbb0cc/tests/approved/test_navigation_type_backforward.htm 
is still invalid in some cases.
It does not allow bfcached documents.


-Olli

>  If you could do
> this one this week, this would give us enough time to close the loop
> - we might need to update the tests depending on the results of the
> discussion around the new test and the expected failure mode.
> - Zhiheng and I need to close the loop on the HTML5 dependencies (which
> we're planning to do around the face-to-face). We'll need to turn this
> one around by Monday to give time to others to review our changes if
> any.
>
> See you all on Friday,
>
> Philippe
>
> Regrets, On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 23:50 +0000, Jatinder Mann wrote:
>> 1.      Feedback and discussion on expected failures for test case.
>>
>> 2.      Feedback and discussion on test_timing_attributes_order.htm
>> test case.
>>
>> 3.      Feedback and discussion on updates to Resource Timing.
>>
>> 4.      Feedback and discussion on adding HTTP status codes to
>> Resource Timing.
>>
>> 5.      Feedback and discussion on updates to User Timing.
>>
>> 6.      Any other business.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jatinder
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 12:50:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 March 2011 12:50:22 GMT