- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:02:39 -0400
- To: Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>
- Cc: public-web-perf@w3.org
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 20:37 +0200, Sigbjørn Vik wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2012 03:14:42 +0200, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > Below is the proposed agenda for tomorrow's meetings. > [...] > > 3. Creating Navigation Timing 2 specification resolution > > It was good to be part of the meeting, and hear people directly. It seems > as if we talked about standards in different ways though, so let me > clarify my stance. Publishing a recommendation carries several meanings: > > 1) User agents wishing to implement this feature are recommended to use > this spec > 2) User agents wishing to be compatible, are recommended to follow this > spec exactly > 3) This spec is stable, and intended to be used on the web for a long time > 4) Web developers are recommended to use this spec > 5) Web developers may expect this spec to be/become supported in user > agents > > For Navigation Timing, I fully support 2), but I don't think we should > promote any of the other points. My understanding from the Group is that the intent is to get both specifications supported in user agents. The spec is stable. We already have 3 browsers that supports Navigation Timing so we could recommend its use. Navigation Timing 2 isn't finished and won't get to REC anytime soon. Once we get that one to REC, it's reasonable to deprecated Navigation Timing but we're not at that point yet. So, it seems to make sense to me that we get Navigation Timing to REC and not throw the work (and the patent commitments) after 2 years. Philippe
Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 18:02:47 UTC