[minutes] Web Performance WG Teleconference #95 2013-01-30

Meeting Summary:

1.     Test Cases

The Page Visibility test cases, http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/PageVisibility/, have been approved to move to the approved folder

Jatinder will review the new Resource Timing test cases submitted by Intel.

2.     Resource Timing Duplicate Resources

The working group has agreed to that the Resource Timing spec does not need additional clarification for the case of multiple requests of the same resource.

3.     Timing control for script-based animations to CR and Page Visibility to PR

The working group has agreed to publish Timing control for script-based animations as a CR publication and publish Page Visibility as a PR publication. Neither spec has any open issues on the spec, and both have three user agent implementations.

W3C Web Performance WG Teleconference #95 2013-01-30

IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-webperf-irc

Meeting Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-webperf-minutes.html


Jatinder Mann, James Simonsen, Philippe Le Hegaret, Alois Reitbauer, Daniel Austin, Ganesh Rao


Jatinder Mann


1.     Discuss Test Cases issues

2.     Discuss Open Spec issues

3.     New Specifications


Test Cases

Jatinder: Considering the Page Visibility test cases have been reviewed and approved, we should move them to the approved folder.
... Any objections?

James: No objections.

Jatinder: Considering the spec has no additional feedback and is in CR, we have three implementations, and a full test suite, I recommend we move the spec to PR.
... Any objections?

Daniel: No objections, let's move it forward.

Jatinder: I noticed that Intel has submitted new Resource Timing test cases.

Ganesh: Yes, we had uploaded new test cases.

Jatinder: James, would you like to review those test cases?

James: I had already reviewed them prior, as a part of the webkit test cases.

Jatinder: Okay, I'll take an action to review these test cases.
... I'll also take the action to move the Page Visibility test cases from submission to approved.
Feedback on Specifications

Jatinder: On the issue of duplicate resources, I had sent mail, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Jan/0033.html, stating that I believed the spec to be clear in both cases where two requestors are requesting the same resource in the same document and different documents. I consider this issue closed.

James: Yes, I'd reviewed the mail. Looks good to me. I noticed your email had referred to the browser, but I think you meant document. We should make sure the spec is correct in that wording.

Jatinder: Yes, I meant document. I'll follow up on the spec.
... There were issues raised on whether we should include protocol information or byte size information in Resource Timing L2. Thoughts on that?

James: I feel that the interface should only include novel information that isn't easily available today. The server serving the resources already knows the size of the images.

Alois: Even for cross-origin resources, this information seems like something someone may want just for debugging purposes.

Jatinder: I feel that for the protocol information, it may be a bit too early to include SPDY, considering that the HTTP2.0 spec is still in the early stages.

Daniel: I recommend we don't close out on these issues, but instead suggest that it's early to discuss now.

Jatinder: We can follow up on the mailng list.
... Considering Timing control for script-based animations (requestAnimationFrame) spec no longer has any open issues, there are three implementations, I recommend we move this spec to CR, as we had discussed last week. Are there any objections?

James: No objections, we should move.

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 01:00:45 UTC