Re: User Timing L3 Bugs Triaged

I'll follow up with Chrome's devtools team.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:15 AM Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote:

> Nice, thanks for triaging these Nicolas! Overall, agree with your
> assessment that there shouldn't be any blockers here.
>
> There is a common theme running through #40 and #25, which I'd love to get
> more input on from folks working on DevTools and JS frameworks, before we
> close them out. Given that dev tools integrations has been one of the key
> drivers for UT adoption, and popular JS frameworks have expressed interest
> in integrating with DevTools, this seems like an area we should explore a
> bit more. That said, none of this is blocking, even if we decide on adding
> some new attributes, they would be incremental to what we already proposed.
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:45 PM Nicolás Peña <npm@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've triaged User Timing L3 issues
>> <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues> and I think there are no
>> bugs blocking Chrome from shipping the L3 version which is now in draft
>> version. Here are my thoughts on the outstanding issues:
>>
>>    - Issue 40 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/40>: editorial
>>    work, no changes to API itself.
>>    - Issue 47 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/37>: editorial
>>    too.
>>    - Issue 25 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/25>: I think we
>>    do not intend to add a 'severity' field for this use case. Even if we did,
>>    it would have to be a new field and should not affect existing fields of
>>    the API.
>>    - Issue 17 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/17>: there are
>>    lots of ideas here, but the core use case is measuring rendering times of
>>    elements, which is what our ElementTiming proposal is about. This is
>>    probably out of scope of UserTiming. If it was added, it would not break
>>    the existing processing.
>>    - Issue 15 <https://github.com/w3c/user-timing/issues/15>: the
>>    proposal seems more related to our new EventTiming API, and thus also out
>>    of the scope of UserTiming. Even if implemented, it would be a completely
>>    new feature that should not break the existing processing model.
>>
>> Given my assessment of these issues, I believe there are no blockers for
>> an implementation (Chrome) to ship. Let me know if there are any questions
>> or concerns. Thanks!
>>
>