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

[minutes] Web Performance WG Teleconference #97 2013-02-13

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:52:52 -0500
Message-ID: <1360781572.2859.30.camel@chacal>
To: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Available at
 http://www.w3.org/2013/02/13-webperf-minutes.html

13 Feb 2013

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/13-webperf-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Arvind, Philippe, Ganesh, Alois, Daniel, James, Jatinder
   Chair
          Jatinder
   Scribe
          plh

Contents

    1. [3]Testing of User Timing
    2. [4]Resource Timing cross origin redirect
    3. [5]Navigation Timing 2
    4. [6]Beacon API
    5. [7]Prerender
    6. [8]other specs
    7. [9]Page Visibility, RAF
    8. [10]Milestones
    9. [11]bandwidth testing issue
     __________________________________________________________

Testing of User Timing

   Jatinder: I recommend we move the tests from Intel to approved
   ... I'll look at the resource timing tests later
   ... I'll move the user timing tests

Resource Timing cross origin redirect

   Jatinder: I'll respond to Pan on that. Didn't close on what to
   do yet. I think he has a point on per resource point

Navigation Timing 2

   Jatinder: one of the goal is perceive latency and with
   pre-render, the latency changes
   ... should we add an attribute preRenderSwitch to NV2?
   ... today, we get duration. would be interesting to have the
   delta between loadEvent and preRenderSwitch
   ... it seems logical to me at least

   James: sounds good to me. it ties into page visibility as well

   Jatinder: we should make it clear that this is not real time
   performance but rather data to understand page load performance
   ... I'll follow up by mail
   ... we'll have to be careful on how preRenderSwitch will come
   off

Beacon API

   Jatinder: sent mail about this regarding the relationship with
   XHR
   ... so we don't have to reinvent everything
   ... seems like there is interest
   ... I was hoping we can continue exploring, so let's not cut it
   from our list
   ... in a perfect world, I would love to have XHR take it on

   Alois: yes, this would require some input from our side. let's
   try to reuse here
   ... hopefully it will get into XHR

   Jatinder: it seems we'll need to provide guidance to them
   ... we'll send them a proposal

Prerender

   Arvind: I started to write it

   Jatinder: I have a bunch of questions and will hold until you
   come up with something

   Arvind: two ways, link tag and when the browser does it (like
   typing in the address bar)
   ... I'm focusing with the link tag

   Jatinder: yes, I don't think we should define heuristic indeeed
   ... should we say that "user agents can use heuristics" ?
   ... should we say something about prerendering https?

   Arvind: we waited to avoid side effect

   Daniel: do we have data on side effects?

   Arvind: not really, I'll follow up

   Jatinder: should we leave the spec open or not?
   ... also a performance impact. Should we put limits?
   ... it seems logical to one, rather than the whole result page

   Arvind: ok, I'll keep working on it

   Jatinder: if you can share the documentation you have, that
   would be nice

other specs

   Jatinder: resource priorities, diagnostic

Page Visibility, RAF

   Plh: we're on track

Milestones

   Plh: are the milestones correct?

   Arvind, Jatinder: yes

bandwidth testing issue

   Jatinder: the nav timing is post processing, while bandwidth is
   for real time decision
   ... nav timing isn't a real time api

   Daniel: I've been writing some thoughts and will send them
   along

   Plh: should it go into XHR?

   Daniel: up for discussion.

   [adjourned]
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:55:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:55:47 GMT