status of Resource Timing

I was asked <> a
simple question, "has there been any progress on the resource timings api".
I turned to the "Status of this document"
section<> but
it has some mistakes and is hard to understand. I've appended the section
below with my comments inlined.

Can we improve this section across all Web Performance Working Group



Status of this document

*This section describes the status of this document at the time of its
publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current
W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be
found in the W3C technical reports index <> at*

> STEVE: Going to displays a list of expandable
> sections. It's not clear which section to open to find the Resource Timing
> spec. I looked for a section on "Web Performance" but there isn't one. I
> went back to the Resource Timing spec<>to find the section but it's not there. I tried the search box but it took
> me to Google Search with pointers back to the spec (which doesn't mention
> the section). I was able to find the appropriate section by searching the
> document source for "Resource Timing" and walking back up the HTML source
> several pages to find the "expand_section" CSS class name which was near
> "JavaScript APIs". Sure enough - if I expand the "JavaScript APIs" section
> it lists the status for the Resource Timing spec. Suggestions: Mention the
> section in the spec. Have the link go to *

W3C publishes a Candidate
indicate that the document is believed to be stable and to encourage
implementation by the developer community.

> It's unclear if this is describing the process or the current status.
> Suggestion: Change the first sentence to "The W3C published a Candidate
> Recommendation..."

The entrance criteria for this document to enter the Proposed
Recommendation stage is to have a minimum of two independent and
interoperable user agents that implementation all the features of this
specification, which will be determined by passing the user agent tests
defined in the test suite developed by the Working Group.

> Just typos here. Suggestions: If "Candidate Recommendation" is a link,
> then make "Proposed Recommendation" a link as well. Change "implementation"
> to "implement" (or "implemented") here: "two independent and interoperable
> user agents that *implementation* all the features".

The Working Group does not expect to advance to Proposed Recommendation
prior to 27 September 2012. A preliminary implementation
available and will be updated during the Candidate Recommendation
period. This is a work in progress and may change without any notices.

> 27 September was ten days ago, so it would be nice to update the date or
> the implementation report.

The Working Group intends to gain implementation experience before
recommending implementations to remove their vendor prefixes.

> There's a typo around "recommending implementations to remove their". I
> think striking out "to" is the fix: "recommending implementations remove
> their".

Please send comments to<>(
archived <>) with
[ResourceTiming] at the start of the subject line by 27 September 2012.

> Since 27 September has passed this sentence is outdated. Changing it to
> "start of the subject line before the end of Candidate Recommendation"
> gives one less place to keep updated as dates change/slide.

Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 20:31:23 UTC