W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [Resource Timing] Initiator Types

From: James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:49:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPVJQim7MQa__YTTpE7x3VmmJNjcqbQA1J7mbr8JKEm2pmSzMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Looks good. Thanks!

James


On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  James,****
>
> ** **
>
> The working group had agreed on defining the <audio> and <video> resource
> behavior in more detail in the Resource Timing Level 2 spec. I have gone
> ahead and removed those examples from Section 4.1 and also added a note
> indicating that those resources are covered in the Resource Timing L2 and
> not the L1 version of the spec. Please review the changes here:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/ResourceTiming/Overview..html.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I also uploaded a draft of the Resource Timing Level 2 specification here:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/ResourceTiming2/Overview.html.
> Aside from the title, it has the same text as L1 at the moment. Once we’ve
> agreed on the expected behavior of the <audio> and <video> resources, I can
> update the L2 spec.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Jatinder****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* James Simonsen [mailto:simonjam@chromium.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:08 PM
> *To:* public-web-perf@w3.org
> *Cc:* public-web-perf
> *Subject:* Re: [Resource Timing] Initiator Types****
>
> ** **
>
> Sorry to revive this thread from the dead.****
>
> ** **
>
> At one point, we'd explicitly removed <audio> and <video> tags from
> Resource Timing. This thread appears to be where we agreed to remove them..
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Since then, we removed the enum of initiator types, so it's no longer
> clear that <audio> and <video> are missing. Worse, we still list them as
> examples of things that should show up in Resource Timing in section 4.1.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> I think we should explicitly say these elements are excluded for the
> reasons listed below. It's already on our charter to support them in
> Resource Timing 2.****
>
> ** **
>
> James****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Nic Jansma <Nic.Jansma@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  As a follow-up to our conf call today, we agreed to remove resources
> associated with VIDEO and AUDIO tags (INITIATOR_AUDIO and INITIATOR_VIDEO)
> for now, as there are several complex scenarios associated with downloading
> resources via those tags (streaming scenarios, range requests, seeking,
> etc).  We may be able to tackle it better with guidance from another W3C
> group.****
>
>  ** **
>
>  ****
>
>  *From:* public-web-perf-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-web-perf-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *James Simonsen****
>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2011 5:37 PM
> *To:* public-web-perf
> *Subject:* [Resource Timing] Initiator Types****
>
>  ****
>
> I have a few questions on the initiator types:****
>
>  ****
>
> INITIATOR_AUDIO****
>
> INITIATOR_VIDEO****
>
>  ****
>
> These ones are a little tricky to time. They don't necessarily load like
> other resources. Sometimes they're never-ending streams. Sometimes they're
> only partially loaded (user skips ahead). And sometimes they're only loaded
> lazily when the user hits play. I could imagine a situation where we had to
> open multiple connections too, which would make some of the timing
> attributes ambiguous. What are we supposed to do in these cases?****
>
>  ****
>
> It's possible that Resource Timing isn't sufficient for describing these
> elements. Maybe they should have their own class of entries on the
> Performance Timeline.****
>
>  ****
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2013 10:55:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:35 UTC