- From: James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:51:50 -0700
- To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:52:19 UTC
Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, but I don't see any significant changes from Navigation Timing. Assuming that's correct, looks good to me. One comment: In the example, getEntries() should return a list, so navigationTiming should be set to index 0 of the return value. James On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote: > Per Action 101, http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/101, I have > removed Section 4.4 from Performance Timeline and have added a new > Navigation Timing 2 specification, > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/NavigationTiming2/Overview.html > .**** > > ** ** > > Please review the Navigation Timing 2 specification carefully. As the > processing model is slightly different from the previous version and as we > would like the ability to add on to the definitions of existing attributes, > I have redefined the attributes in this specification, as done in other > specifications like the DOM specs.**** > > ** ** > > Performance Timeline specification now has no open items or remaining > feedback and can be moved to the CR stage.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks,**** > > Jatinder**** >
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:52:19 UTC