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

Re: [NavigationTiming2] Uploaded Navigation Timing 2 Spec

From: James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:51:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPVJQi=PSohQqg8ZRKhTFUsLb9wpd17buGi2icV3GV2_HmSFXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, but I don't see any significant
changes from Navigation Timing. Assuming that's correct, looks good to me.

One comment: In the example, getEntries() should return a list, so
navigationTiming should be set to index 0 of the return value.

James

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Per Action 101, http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/101, I have
> removed Section 4.4 from Performance Timeline and have added a new
> Navigation Timing 2 specification,
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/NavigationTiming2/Overview.html
> .****
>
> ** **
>
> Please review the Navigation Timing 2 specification carefully. As the
> processing model is slightly different from the previous version and as we
> would like the ability to add on to the definitions of existing attributes,
> I have redefined the attributes in this specification, as done in other
> specifications like the DOM specs.****
>
> ** **
>
> Performance Timeline specification now has no open items or remaining
> feedback and can be moved to the CR stage.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Jatinder****
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:52:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:32 UTC