- From: Jan Linnebank <jan@linnebank.nl>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:25:23 +0100
- To: public-web-perf@w3.org
A note from me as an outsider (with interest): I think sub-millisecond resolution for FPS detection would be nice, but for this goal is strictly not necessary. If the end-programmer samples the time-period of multiple frames, the average can still have enough precision. (E.g. Sample 10 frames and you have an average which is accurate to 0.1 ms.) Regards, Jan On 29-2-2012 11:39, Sigbjørn Vik wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:47:00 +0100, Jatinder Mann > <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> I have uploaded a draft of the High Resolution Time spec here: >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/HighResolutionTime/Overview.html. >> Please review the spec and provide feedback. > > "Without sub-millisecond resolution, a developer can only determine if > an animation is drawing at 58.8 FPS or 62.5 FPS." > A technically correct way of saying this would be e.g. "a developer > can only determine such a framerate to within 3.5 FPS". Technically, > with a reading of 17, the FPS is determined to be in the range 57-61. > > "the number of milliseconds from the start of the navigation of the > root document" > Is the "start of the navigation" well enough defined? Should we link > it to one of the other performance specs to tie it down absolutely? > This also allows a cross-origin iframe to tell how long the parent has > been alive, which I believe is not possible now. This is a slight > privacy leak, which can easily be avoided. For instance remove "root" > from the statement, or change it to "the topmost same-origin > document", with a suitable definition of same-origin. I believe the > second is better, it is useful for same-origin documents to have the > same timestamps. For cross-origin documents this should normally not > be required. This should also be recorded in the privacy section. >
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 11:25:11 UTC