Re: [profile] Scope of the TV Profile document

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:43:02 +0100, Bent G Christensen  
<benchris@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> 2) We have found it key to making our HTML5 applications work on
>>>> consumer electronics devices that we consider performance as well as
>>>> conformance. It may be that a given device supports a given feature  
>>>> but
>>>> it is just too slow to be useful. Performance requirements would need
>>>> to be defined in terms of specific performance tests/benchmarks and
>>>> would provide guidance to implementors as to where to focus
>>>> optimization efforts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Completely agree, but I envision this as a second (set of) document.
>>> First, I would like to write the functional architecture. Second step
>>> could be to deal with performances. W3C is probably not the right place
>>> to write a normative performances document, but what we could discuss  
>>> is
>>> probably how to measure such performances (and which one are relevant
>>> for the industry) leaving to other groups to deal with a minimal
>>> performance requirements.  Given the limited bandwidth I would start
>>> with this once the profile document is at least half way through.  
>>> Unless
>>> someone is willing to drive this second effort, in this case, we can
>>> discuss them in parallel.
>>>
>>
>> Giving it a second thought, we may want at least for now add a section  
>> in
>> the profile document about this (and split it later only if it grows)
>> As said this would be more to point out which performance metrics should
>> be considered, and in some cases suggesting (not mandating) minimal
>> performance requirements.
>>
>> I also think that "performance" is to be intended in a wider sense that
>> just "speed". e.g. features that rely on disk space (app-cache) may be
>> enabled but unusable if the memory available on the device is limited.
>
> I agree on defining the metrics to measure "performance" / goodness  
> factor
> of the implementation. We could even designate an appropriate score for  
> each
> such quality giving the implementers an easy way to measure and compare
> implementations.
>

Sounds good.
Feel free (this is intended for everybody on this list) to point out to  
existing work in this area or start to draft a straw man proposal we can  
use as starting point for discussion
Feel free to use the wiki [1] (just create a new page) if the mail is not  
ideal to share your thoughts, Ill later incorporate the text in the  
profile document as the discussion evolves.

One thing would be valuable to explore is all the existing test suites and  
benchmark around and see if there are any that can be considered for our  
purpose.
If any of you have already done such an analysis and can share it that  
would be great.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page


/g

-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:56:34 UTC