W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [ResourceTiming] Handling of "resourcetimingbufferfull" events makes no sense

From: Sreeram Ramachandran <sreeram@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:20:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CADBeB=93cX2OguVrnUXUaTDpZkcKn9GT=Z5aKQY+jUUV6eNp_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> If you do that then EventTarget doesn't show up on the prototype chain.

Isn't that true of all supplemental interfaces? If "supplemental
interface must show up in the prototype chain" is important for
Performance objects, why isn't it important in other cases?

Also, while it's true that EventTarget by name won't show up in the
prototype chain, its attributes would show up on the Performance
object, as per the fourth bullet point in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2010OctDec/0071.html
(caveat: I haven't read the whole thread). Would that be "good
enough"?

I am just trying to see if we can avoid the pain of having to amend a
spec at Recommendation status. I certainly agree that it would be
cleaner to have the inheritance in the original spec itself.
Received on Friday, 11 October 2013 17:21:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:37 UTC