- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 02:25:12 -0700
- To: Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, public-web-perf@w3.org
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com> wrote: > 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. I like that solution. That also has the advantage in that it allows doing cross-frame performance measurements. I.e. you can check when the various steps of a sub-document load happen in relation to the top-level document load. This can be useful since often a page which visually looks like one document, might actually be comprised of several frames. One very concrete use-case would be seeing when the various stages of an ad which is loaded in an iframe happen in relation to both each other, and in relation to the top-level document which the user is seeing. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 09:26:17 UTC