Re: [minutes] Web Performance WG Teleconference #120 2013-10-23

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  *Meeting Summary:*****
>
>  ****
>
> **1.     ***Specs moving to PR and CR*****
>
> Philippe has started the process of moving User Timing and Performance
> Timeline to PR and rAF to CR. There will be a transition request next week.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> **2.     ***Performance implements EventTarget*****
>
> We had initially discussed updating Navigation Timing L1 errata to change
> the Performance object to implement EventTarget. Though this doesn’t have a
> compatibility impact, it will have a conformance impact and require the
> spec to go back to Last Call, which isn’t desirable for a Recommendation
> spec. Instead we think it may be better to re-define the Performance object
> in the Navigation Timing L2 and deprecate the Navigation Timing L1 once the
> L2 spec has reached Recommendation. Seeing that the L2 spec already
> re-defines all of the L1 timing attributes in the PerformanceEntry object,
> this seems like a natural progression. I will follow up on the mailing list
> on this proposal.
>

So with respect to Resource Timing specification, what are we planning? We
don't have it refer to Navigation Timing L2 as of now.

Arvind



> ****
>
> ** **
>
> **3.     ***Specs moving to FPWD*****
>
> As Resource Priorities and Beacon are relatively stable compared to the
> other new specs, we are moving to publish those specs as FPWD. This will
> also encourage more people to review those specs and provide feedback.****
>
> ** **
>
> **4.     ***Progress on new specs prior to TPAC*****
>
> We haven’t made much progress on some of our older specs, including
> Navigation Error Logging, Resource Error Logging, HAR, and JavaScript
> Injection. If all editors could clean up their specs prior to TPAC, we can
> have a more concise and targeted discussion on the remaining open issues on
> those specs.****
>
> ** **
>
> **5.     ***Discussions topics for HTML WG F2F at TPAC*****
>
> We currently only have two topics of discussion with the HTML WG at TPAC:
> getting link rel=prerender included in the HTML5 spec and showing the
> Resource Priorities spec to the group. If you have any additional topics
> you want to consider discussing, please respond to this thread.****
>
> ** **
>
> **6.     ***Moving test cases to github *****
>
> To match other working groups, we are planning on moving our test cases to
> the github repository. Philippe has pointed to some documentation in this
> mail thread,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Oct/0052.html.
> For now, we will keep the specs still in the existing repository, but can
> consider moving that over to github in the future as well.****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> *W3C Web Performance WG Teleconference #1**20 2013-10-23*****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *IRC log:* http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-webperf-irc ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Meeting Minutes:* http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-webperf-minutes.html ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Attendees*****
>
> Philippe Le Hegaret, Jatinder Mann, Ganesh Rao****
>
>  ****
>
> *Scribe *****
>
> Jatinder Mann****
>
>  ****
>
> *Agenda*****
>
> **1.     **Discuss existing spec progress****
>
> **2.     **Discuss new spec progress****
>
> **3.     **Move to github repository ****
>
> **4.     **TPAC logistics****
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Minutes:*
>
> *Existing specs*
>
> <*plh*> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2013OctDec/0056.html**
> **
>
> <*plh*> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2013OctDec/0072.html**
> **
>
> <*plh*> so, RAF, User Timing, and Performance Timeline should be moving
> forward****
>
> *plh:* We should have a issues list for our specs prior to TPAC.****
>
> <*plh*> http://www.w3.org/2013/08/cr-issues-performance-timeline.html****
>
> <*plh*>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Aug/0106.html****
>
> <*plh*> performance.getEntries() == performance.getEntries() returns false
> ****
>
> performance.getEntries()[0] == performance.getEntries()[0]****
>
> performance.getEntries() == performance.getEntries()****
>
> *Jatinder:* IE11 gives me false on both tests****
>
> performance.getEntries()[0] == performance.getEntries()[0]****
>
> *Jatinder:* Returns true in Chrome****
>
> performance.getEntries() == performance.getEntries() is false for the
> entire list****
>
> *Jatinder:* Seems like we should test both cases.
> ... I made updates to Performance Timeline based on feedback from
> Philippe, namely note to wiki page with latest known entryTypes and a new
> Vendor Extensions section,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Oct/0053.html****
>
> *Plh:* Let's plan to do the transition request sometime next week.****
>
> *Jatinder:* Navigation Timing L1 Errata: Update Performance object to
> implement EventTarget,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Oct/0046.html****
>
> *plh:* NTL1 change would have no compatibility hit, but will have a
> conformance hit. We would have to go to Last Call again and the whole
> process again.
> ... Alternatively, we can just define this change in NT L2 and deprecate
> NT L1. Resource Timing would be tied to NT L2 though.****
>
> *Jatinder:* Seeing that we have defined all the attributes in the NT L2
> spec, I am okay with deprecating NT L1 in favor of NT L2. IE11 already
> supports NT L2. I'll email the list.
> ... High Resolution Time L1 Errata: Move navigationStart reference to
> note,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Oct/0049.html****
>
> *Plh:* I'll make the update to the Errata.****
>
> *Jatinder:* Page Visibility L1 had a spelling mistake on
> visibilitychange, which was fixed in the latest draft. Do we need to update
> errata or can this change just be pushed out?****
>
> *Plh:* Let me follow and see what I can do about this.****
>
> ACTION Plh to fix visibilitychange typo in Page Visibility L1 spec.****
>
> <*trackbot*> Created ACTION-109 - Fix visibilitychange typo in page
> visibility l1 spec. [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2013-10-30].****
>
> *Progress on new specs*
>
> *Jatinder:* I have been making changes based on feedback on Resource
> Priorities. I don't believe we have any significant feedback changes
> remaining, but there may be some. Can we at least publish this spec as a
> FPWD?****
>
> <*plh*> Resolved: Publish resource priorities as FPWD****
>
> *Jatinder:* I haven't looked at the Beacon spec in a while, but I didn't
> think there was a lot of feedback on that spec. I may need to strengthen
> the processing model. Can we publish this spec as FPWD as well?****
>
> <*plh*> Resolved: Publish beacon API as FPWD****
>
> *Jatinder:* We had quite a bit discussion on Navigation Error Logging and
> Resource Error Logging, and I think there are changes that remain to be
> made. I'll ping Arvind and I'll try to help make changes.
> ... I believe for Prerender we decided that we should try to get the link
> = prerender text added to the HTML5 spec. Is there a bug open on that?****
>
> *Plh:* We updated the wiki page pointed on the HTML5 spec. We will want
> to ask HTML WG to put this into the spec.
> ... Why topics did you want to talk to with HTML WG?****
>
> *Jatinder:* Mainly the prerender spec and we can introduce the Resource
> Priorities spec.
> ... I believe we still have plans to document HAR as a note. We should try
> to make progress on that
> ... Based on the last discussions, I'm not sure if we are yet committed to
> JavaScript Injection. We should close on whether we want to pursue it or
> not.
> ... Since TPAC is only two weeks away, why don't we talk about this spec
> at TPAC.****
>
> *Plh:* Mark will be at TPAC.****
>
> *Jatinder:* We'll be sure to talk about this with Mark and Alois in the
> room.****
>
> *Moving repository to github*
>
> *Jatinder:* Philippe shared documentation here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Oct/0052.html****
>
> *TPAC 2013*
>
> *plh:* I will add the agenda on a wiki page****
>
> ** **
>