- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 23:27:53 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- cc: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote: > > > > It certainly makes sense to include performance of media elements into > > the Timing specifications. ResourceTiming will shortly be in CR so > > it's best to put together a new spec for this use case. We could > > either do this in ResourceTiming2 spec (no work has started on that > > front yet) or have a MediaResourceTiming specification (probably > > better option). > > Please note that the idea was to have some of the statistics NOT be > media resource specific. In particular: > > * bytesReceived > * downloadTime, and > * networkWaitTime > > are relevant to all resources that a Web page may embed. Thus, this fits > better with the general ResourceTiming2 spec. > > What is relevant to only media is the DroppedFrames statistic and it may > make more sense to have that in the media element itself, if it is the > only metric that we're after for the video element. The media-specific ones should just be handled as part of the HTML work. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 23:28:18 UTC