- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:58:56 -0800
- To: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
- Cc: Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com>, Patrick Meenan <pmeenan@webpagetest.org>, Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>, Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com> wrote: > Hi, Jonas, > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com> wrote: >> > Thanks to all for chiming in with many perspectives! Given the >> > imminent >> > timing line let's make the call on this >> > topic and move forward: NavigationTiming will use window.performance >> > object, >> > which itself is replaceable. >> > Here are the points we've covered so far to reach this decision: >> > - There is interest to keep the interface concise, which has its own >> > advantage in the long run. >> > - Most of us agree that we should avoid the potential conflicts with >> > existing pages. Having window.performance replaceable >> > address that. >> > - Probably a common practice, having window.performance replaceable >> > could >> > still confuse some. But so far there >> > doesn't seem to be any objection to that. >> > - There is some risk allowing developers to replace >> > window.performance. >> > But considering most objects/functions >> > are replaceable in ECMA scripts, protecting window.performance alone >> > could be a half-way solution to integrity >> > of the collected. So best intentions are assumed. >> > - Less of an argument... but this is the current implementation >> > adopted by >> > IE and Chrome. >> >> I'm still not understanding this. As far as I can see only the last >> point, which you are saying is "less of an argument", seems to be an >> argument for using the name "performance". > > Yes, it's not a deciding factor but still an argument in practice. > >> >> I'll point out, yet again, that my question of why not using >> "pagePerformance" or "performanceMetrics", still remains unanswered. > > window.performance is short and terse so it bears more weight than > others. > And, when it's on billions of pages, every byte counts. :-) > cheers, So shortness is the main argument? Wouldn't "pagePerf" or "perfMetrics" be better or as good then? / Jonas
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 21:59:49 UTC