Re: [Web Timing] Getting root timings to recommendation

     This is extremely helpful. Thanks, Tony. Please find comments inline.

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com> wrote:

> Chrome 7 and the IE9 beta are drawing near. While aggressive, it might be
> possible to push to get the Web Timing spec [1] into a recommended state by
> then so that we can drop the vendor prefixes for those releases.


    Agree we should moving towards removing the vendor prefixes. As we
discussed out of this thread, fortunately, advancing the draft to
recommendation doesn't necessarily
block us from doing it (at least for Chrome). :-)


>
> I've surveyed the spec and the two implementations and prepared a summary
> [2] of the remaining differences. The left most column lists an event or
> step in the whatwg HTML5 spec. The next four columns list how the two spec
> sections and two implementations label that step. My editorials are on the
> right summarizing the differences.
>
> Some high level thoughts:
> 1. The spec has normative requirements in both 4.2 and 4.4. This introduces
> the possibility that the spec is internally inconsistent (or at best
> redundant). My preference would be for 4.4 to be normative and 4.2 to be
> rephrased as non-normative notes.
>

    I would keep both normative when eliminating any inconsistency and
redundancy (if any). And if one of them has to be relaxed, it should
be 4.5 (processing model) IMO. Definition is what keep the attributes
consistent across user agents.


> 2. The spec could use a careful editorial pass to clean up typos, apply
> some formatting to 4.4, and link up more definitions.
>

    Agree. I will take care of them.


> 3. Resource timing needs to be split into another document.
>

    Done in the latest updates. ResourceTiming is now under
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/ResourceTiming/
I will send out more notes when I add a couple more points into it.


> 4. In terms of the actual implementations, there are only very minor
> differences. I think this is all:
>   1. We are pretty close on navigationStart, but we need to be specific
> about beforeunload.
>

    While having it up in the draft for easy discussion, I incline to remove
unloadStart. Security triumphs. That said, I would really like
to see more feedback from others about this particular issue.



>   2. [un]loadEvent[Start,End] vs. [un]load[Start,End].
>   3. requestEnd is marked differently.
>   4. dom*, firstPaint, fullyLoaded timings should either be put in the spec
> or prefixed w/ ms.
>

> All of this only pertains to window.performance.timing. We probably need to
> talk about navigation, timingMeasures, and the new Mark/Measure APIs.
>

    I believe the new Mark API falls into the UserTiming space? (
http://www.w3.org/2010/08/webperf.html)

thanks,
Zhiheng




>
> -Tony
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebTiming/
> [2]
> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvEMl2LYkOQ5dGRLV3Nxc0lCQk0xNTNYRFBFRHlUWXc
>
>