iirc, this was from the very first draft when we kept multiple performancetiming objects at the same time. It's no longer the case and should be removed. Thanks for the catches! cheers, Zhiheng On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote: > On Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:44 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > The specification curently says (section 4.4): > > > > PerformanceTiming objects in the timing attribute may be sorted by > > the chronological order of the corresponding browsing context. > > > > "the timing attribute" returns a PerformanceTiming object. There are not > > such objects "in" this attribute, that I can see. So I'm not sure > what's being > > sorted here, nor what "chronological order of the corresponding browsing > > context" means exactly. This needs to be clarified, assuming this > sentence > > is needed at all. > > > > -Boris > > As to my knowledge, neither IE nor Chrome have defined any iterator here. > As there isn't any clear benefit of keeping this sentence, I am not opposed > to removing it. > > Zhiheng, do you recall why we included that sentence? > > > Thanks, > Jatinder > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 09:10:40 UTC