- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:53:26 -0400
- To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
- CC: "Karen Anderson (IE)" <Karen.Anderson@microsoft.com>, Carl-Anton Ingmarsson <carlantoni@opera.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On 6/22/12 5:21 PM, Jatinder Mann wrote: > In the case of dynamic markup insertion, I agree with Karen that it is confusing to update some of the attributes and not the others, particularly because the timeline implies an ordering. Our options appear to either not allow dynamic markup insertion to change the Navigation Timing attributes or in the dynamic markup insertion case, to update all attributes, including zero deltas for attributes that are not changed. > > It appears that the spec authors attempted to capture the former, though the spec text is not very clear. I recommend we fix the spec bug to make the intended behavior more clear. > > What are your thoughts on this proposed text: > > 1.If the navigation or document is aborted for any of the following reasons I don't think it makes sense to condition the document.open behavior on the "aborted" thing, because there is no aborting going on anywhere with document.open until after you've changed some of the timings. If the desired behavior is that document.open never affects timings, then what you really want is explicit text saying that events triggered in response to document.open (link, etc) are ignored by navigation timing and do not cause any timing values to change. Similar for document.close. That said, I think this spec could really benefit from an actual definition of "navigation". The definition could explicitly exclude document.open, which would have the same effect in terms of normative requirements. Thanks, Boris
Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 21:53:57 UTC