[minutes] 20111005 Web Performance WG Teleconference #50

Meeting Summary:



1.      TPAC 2011

a.       Logistics

The Web Performance WG meeting at TPAC 2011 will be on Tuesday, November 1st at Santa Clara. All working group members must register for the event at http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/#Schedule - please register soon. Details on the time and location can be found at that site.



b.      Agenda

I will send out a separate email detailing the proposed agenda; though, we have tentatively discussed including the following topics:

                                                              i.      Operational discussion

Update our timetable goals, as documented at http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webperf, for the spec milestone and implementation release.



                                                            ii.      Moving Navigation Timing forward

Considering Navigation Timing spec has been stable in CR for a long period of time, two interoperable implementations exist and we have a complete test suite, we need to determine the next steps in taking this spec to Recommended. The remaining work is to provide proof that our dependencies, WebIDL and HTML5, are stable or that the portion of these specs that we depend on are stable.



Considering WebIDL is in (probably final) last call, we expect this not to be an issue.



For HTML5, we will need to provide evidence that our dependencies are stable by showing that that portion of the spec hasn't changed in a long time and give test cases to prove our implementations match the HTML5 spec behavior. We will seed thought in the working group meeting next week. We have opened ACTION-51 Look at NT references to HTML5 and see if those parts of the spec are stable on Zhiheng Wang.



                                                          iii.      requestAnimationFrame open items

requestAnimationFrame specification has three remaining open issues. If these issues are not closed prior to TPAC, let's spend some time at TPAC closing down on them.



                                                           iv.      What's next

Now that most of our specifications are relatively stable, we need to start looking at what new performance areas we want to tackle next. Let's come prepared to discuss new performance topics. If there are other area experts that you want to invite for this portion of the meeting, please also consider doing so.



2.      Timing Spec Security Review

Tony has sent questions on the Timing spec's security model to various security and privacy working group mailing lists. He will respond with a summary of the feedback this coming week. Based on the feedback, we can evaluate whether we need to strengthen or keep as is our current security model.



3.      Resource Timing Specification Feedback

Anne had suggested feedback on clearing defining terms, like "browsing context", in the specification, using string values instead of integer based constants and clarifying element types in the Resource Timing spec. We have opened ACTION-53 Update resource timing constants from integers to strings to track making these changes. We have also opened ACTION-54 Update the resource timing abstract to update the spec abstract.



4.      Navigation Timing Test Case

IE9 and IE10 are currently failing one Navigation Timing test case, http://w3c-test.org/framework/test/nav-timing-default/single/test_timing_xserver_redirect/. We have opened ACTION-52 on me to determine whether this is a test case bug or an IE bug that needs to be fixed.



5.      Page Visibility Feedback and Test Suite

There has been good feedback on the Page Visibility spec on the mailing list. I will follow up individually on issues raised by Boris Zbarsky on the mailing list.



Considering there are two complete implementations of the Page Visibility specification, we will now focus on creating test cases to ensure the implementations are interoperable and find areas to improve the spec.



6.      RequestAnimationFrame Issues and Test Suite

We will try to close on the remaining three requestAnimationFrame open issues - the working group will begin suggesting text. If we haven't closed on these issues by TPAC, we can spend some time at TPAC closing down the open issues.



As we have three implementations of requestAnimationFrame, we need to start working on test cases to ensure interoperability and drive spec updates. We will begin creating test cases in areas where the spec currently does not have open issues.



Action Items:
ACTION-51 - Look at NT references to HTML5 and see if those parts of the spec are stable. [on Zhiheng Wang - due 2011-10-12].
ACTION-52 - Look into the failing IE tests in Navigation Timing [on Jatinder Mann - due 2011-10-12].
ACTION-53 - Update resource timing constants from integers to strings [on Jatinder Mann - due 2011-10-12].
ACTION-54 - Update the resource timing abstract [on Jatinder Mann - due 2011-10-12].



Detailed Notes:



Web Perf Teleconference #50 10/05/2011



IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-webperf-irc


Meeting Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-webperf-minutes.html



Attendees

Present for Navigation Timing, Resource Timing and User Timing (4-5PM EST/1-2PM PST)
Tony Gentilcore, James Simenson, Jatinder Mann, Nic Jansma, Arvind Jain, Zhiheng Wang, Karen Anderson, Philippe Le Hegaret, Alois Reitbauer, Ganesh Rao


Present for Page Visibility, Efficient Script Yielding, Display Paint Notifications (4-5PM EST/2-3PM PST)

Philippe Le Hegaret, Jatinder Mann, Arvind Jain, Karen Anderson



Scribe

Jatinder Mann



Contents

Agenda

1.       TPAC 2011 Agenda

2.       Timing Spec Security Review

3.       Resource Timing Specification Feedback

4.       Navigation Timing Test Case

5.       Page Visibility Feedback and Test Suite

6.       RequestAnimationFrame Issues and Test Suite



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPAC 2011 Agenda

Let's discuss the TPAC 2011 conference.

The Web Performance talk is on Tuesday, November 1st

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/#Schedule

<plh> please register for the TPAC meeting!

I will send out a proposed agenda for TPAC, but for topics that I want to include are: operational discussion, moving Navigation Timing forward, requestAnimationFrame open items, What new areas to tackle, etc.

plh: We need to have everyone register for TPAC. Use the link I sent.

Arvind: What is the process for going to other working groups?

plh: We can just drop by in other WG meetings. If we want to include items on other WG agenda's, we will need to email and ask them.

Arvind: Do we have a link for list of people from our WG that wll be attending?

plh: I will send out such a link. Currently, it's just me. But once we register more will be added.

Alois: If we are planning on covering in depth, techincal discussions, it may make sense for dynatrace to come from europe.

Arvind: Yes, it will make sense to have a technical discussion. If you want to add items to the agenda that we can cover, please respond to the proposed agenda mail.
... Question for Philippe. We are making good progress on the current specifications. What is your opinion on updating the charter to add more items and continue to work on the existing items?

plh: We are all for updating the charter. We will want to close on navigation timing. If we feel that we are making good progress on the current items, we can take on new items.
Security Review

Jatinder: Tony, did you get any feedback on the security review questions?

<plh> Tracking Protection WG is meeting on Monday/Tuesday at TPAC btw

<plh> as well as Web Application Security Working Group

TonyG: Yes, there is feedback on the other threads. I will summarize the findings on the mailling list in a few days.

Ganesh: I also have feedback on the security review that I can forward to the mailing list.

<plh> for browsing context: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/browsers.html#browsing-context

<plh> for fetch:

<plh> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/fetching-resources.html#fetch

Karen: Should we reference another spec or just redefine that behavior in our spec?

Jatinder: If the definition is the same as another spec, we should just reference the spec. If the definition is different enough, we should write our own defintion

plh: I agree.

Karen: I agree that we shouldn't copy.
Moving Navigation Timing forward.

Jatinder: Considering Navigation Timing spec has been stable in CR for a long period of time, two interoperable implementations exist and we have a complete test suite, we need to determine the next steps in taking this spec to Recommended.

<plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2011Feb/0036.html

Jatinder: The remaining work is to provide proof that our dependencies, WebIDL and HTML5, are stable or that the portion of these specs that we depend on are stable.
... Considering WebIDL is in (probably final) last call, we expect this not to be an issue.
... For HTML5, we will need to provide evidence that our dependencies are stable by showing that that portion of the spec hasn't changed in a long time and give test cases to prove our implementations match the HTML5 spec behavior.

ACTION Zhiheng to look at NT references to HTML5 and see if those parts of the spec are stable.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Look at NT references to HTML5 and see if those parts of the spec are stable. [on Zhiheng Wang - due 2011-10-12].

<plh> http://w3c-test.org/framework/test/nav-timing-default/single/test_timing_xserver_redirect/

<plh> http://w3c-test.org/framework/details/nav-timing-default/test_timing_xserver_redirect/engine/trident/

ACTION Jatinder to look into the failing IE tests in Navigation Timing

<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Look into the failing IE tests in Navigation Timing [on Jatinder Mann - due 2011-10-12].
Resource Timing Feedback

Jatinder: Another comment from Anne's email was to not use integer based constants.

ACTION Jatinder to update resource timing constants from integers to strings

<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Update resource timing constants from integers to strings [on Jatinder Mann - due 2011-10-12].

ACTION Jatinder to update the resource timing abstract

<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Update the resource timing abstract [on Jatinder Mann - due 2011-10-12].

<plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/2011JulSep/0031.html

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2011/08/browser-testing-charter.html