- From: Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:19:08 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, public-web-perf@w3.org
There's another tradeoff: it's desirable for now() to be comparable to the values returned by performance.timing. For instance, a child frame calling now() in the load event should get a value similar to "performance.timing.loadEventStart - performance.timing.navigationStart". The last two expectations in this test demonstrate: http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Google/HighResolutionTime/test_cross_frame_start.html (A) requires now() to be comparable across frames and (B) requires now() to be comparable to the frame's timeline. The implementation on Chrome's dev channel passes (A), but still has the bug that it does this regardless across origins. We totally break the use-case in (B). Jatinder, what does IE do here? A shared timebase per origin and a non-zero navigationStart on subframes might just be the best solution. -Tony On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 5/14/12 5:58 PM, James Robinson wrote: >> >> I like the idea that same-origin frames share a timebase, but I don't >> think walking window.parent is sufficient. You could have sibling >> iframes that are the same origin as each other and are scripting each >> other but different origin from their parent. I think this proposal >> really boils down to keeping a timebase for each unique origin within a >> top-level browsing context. > > > Why limited to a top-level browsing context? > > >> and getting the origin has to be fast to make other JS >> accessors fast. > > > Unclear. This is not the case in Gecko, say.... Or more precisely, getting > a _string_ origin is fast in Gecko, but there is no object that represents > an origin, so the cost would basically be equivalent to a hashtable lookup > unless more code restructuring happens. Which might need to happen, of > course. > > >> If authors are doing this in JS > > > Then we lose. Let's avoid that. ;) > > -Boris >
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:20:13 UTC