W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [Navigation Timing] test_document_readiness_exist.htm

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:51:02 +0300
Message-ID: <4F992896.3080509@helsinki.fi>
To: "Karen Anderson (IE)" <Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On 04/25/2012 06:22 AM, Karen Anderson (IE) wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> IE has failures in the document readiness test
> (http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/navigation-timing/html5/test_document_readiness_exist.html)
> and I've been looking into how the browsers are handling readiness
> events and it isn't consistent.  This was actually brought up a long
> time ago by Tony:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2010Jul/0016.html.
> My additional homework has found that some of the inconsistencies is
> also around how the different browsers handle the onreadystatechange
> event for subdocuments.


See 
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2012-April/035521.html


>
> My concern with the current test is that most likely by the time the
> code is running on the page, we have already missed the loading phase.
> If we change the test to use an iframe, then we run into the
> discrepancies of how the different browsers fire the onreadystatechange
> event on subdocuments.
>
> Recalling history, adding the dom* events to the performance object was
> to give a consistent story on these events when one didn't already
> exist.  Creating a test that calls out this discrepancy seems odd to
> me.  I think given that, I think we should remove the test from the
> suite.  The timing order test covers that the dom* events include
> timestamps and in the correct location in the timeline, so we are
> covered from that perspective.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karen
>
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 10:51:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 10:51:47 GMT