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

Re: navigationStart in NavigationTiming

From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:28:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOYaDdN1F0v_xPKpw=QewP26fpfoZyeikAgyBAzDsiTxZN3RBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
OK I'll write up something to this effect. Last question: what should
performance.navigation value be for initial about:blank? Does it need to be
specifically defined or is the current text ok?

Arvind


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 5/2/13 12:54 AM, Arvind Jain wrote:
>
>> We can special case "initial about:blank" page in the navigationStart
>> definition - not a big deal. But could you look at the spec and see if
>> it makes sense when we have a page that was not navigated to?
>>
>
> I haven't read the processing model in detail in a while, honestly.  But
> last I checked, the processing model only runs during navigation, so
> wouldn't ever get triggered for the initial about:blank.
>
>
>  It'd be great if you could suggest the actual wording to incorporate the
>> "initial about:blank" page such that the entire spec makes sense.
>>
>
> The simplest thing to do is to define somewhere that when the initial
> about:blank is constructed it gets a performance.timing with certain values
> in it.  This shouldn't need to affect the "when navigation happens"
> processing model in any way.
>
> -Boris
>
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 19:28:57 UTC

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