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

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

From: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:47:58 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimVJ1iU--XqXbNTAaVEit4_j0OM2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olli@pettay.fi
Cc: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:

> 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/
>

    good point. I will fix it shortly.


>
> 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)
>

   I will clarify some more in the draft.

   IMHO, the behavior of bfcache (and prerendering) is more similar to
showing/hiding tabs in a user agent, which strictly speaking does not follow
the steps outlined here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/history.html#navigating-across-documents. It just
happens to rely on the forward/backward key. :-) Just my $0.02.

cheers,
Zhiheng
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/history.html#navigating-across-documents>



>
> And related to that
>
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/file/fb6cbccbb0cc/tests/approved/test_navigation_type_backforward.htmis 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 17:48:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:30 UTC