- From: James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:03:45 -0700
- To: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPVJQimRwDaZKU5HD6OEw374DEM_bEYOh0fs1sdQatWM++XObg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Nic Jansma <Nic.Jansma@microsoft.com>wrote: > Hi folks,**** > > ** ** > > A few thoughts about the current draft @ > http://www.w3c-test.org/webperf/specs/ResourceTiming/**** > > ** ** > > 1. We've discussed the differences between ResourceTiming's startTime<http://www.w3c-test.org/webperf/specs/ResourceTiming/#performance-resource-timing>and > fetchStart<http://www.w3c-test.org/webperf/specs/ResourceTiming/#fetch-start>before, but I think there is still a bit of confusion. Ignoring redirects > for a moment, startTime is currently defined as "The startTime attribute > must return the time immediately before the user agent starts to queue the > resource for fetching". In a recent discussion with James [1], we talked > about startTime always equaling fetchStart for non-redirection scenarios. > However, we had also previously talked about startTime possibly being > earlier than fetchStart, in the case that the browser queued a resource for > download but does not immediately attempt to fetch it because of connection > limits. For example, if you included 100 <img>s all on the same domain, the > resources may all have a similar startTime (parsing HTML is fast), but their > fetchStarts would differ on the later <img>s as connections became > available. I believe the wording of startTime in the spec currently > supports this notion, but I wanted to make sure everyone agreed that was the > intention? > I hadn't been thinking about that. This does seem like good information and the gap between startTime and fetchStart seems like an intuitive way of exposing it. > ** > > 2. For consistency, can we rename INITIATOR_IMAGE<http://www.w3c-test.org/webperf/specs/ResourceTiming/#sec-window.performance-attribute>to INITIATOR _IMG? All of the other initiator names use the HTML element > name or concept, and IMAGE seems a bit ambiguous when it really only means > the <IMG> tag.**** > > ** > Sure. 3. The most popular initiator<http://www.w3c-test.org/webperf/specs/ResourceTiming/#sec-window.performance-attribute>that I see on the web that currently falls under INITIATOR_OTHER is > input[type='image']. The second most popular is body[background='...']. We > could add INITIATOR_INPUT and INITIATOR_BODY, though I don't feel strongly > that we need them. > It's good that you collected data for these. I suspect they're a very small fraction of the total uses, so I'd vote for leaving them as OTHER. If a lot of people complain, we can spec them in v2. James
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2011 22:04:14 UTC